Stom  f^e  feifitari?  of 

(ptofe66or  ^atnuef  (ttXtffer 

in  (glemort?  of 

^ubge  ^amuef  Oliffer  Q0recfetnribge 

^teeenfeb  6)^ 

^amuef  Ottffer  (jBrecfttnribge  feong 

to  t^e  feifitatg  of 

(princefon  ^^eofogicaf  ^eminarg 


BX  5936  .W8    c.l 
Woods,  Leonard,  1774-1854 
Lecbures  on  church 
go  ve  r  nmeni: 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/lecturesonchurOOwood 


LECTURES 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT 


CONTAINING 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  EPISCOPAL  SCHEME. 


DELIVERED   IN 
THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  AXDOVER, 

ACGl'ST,  MDCCCXLUI. 


BY  LEONARD  WOODS,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Christian  Theolot'V. 


NEW  YORK: 
PUBLISHED  BY  TURNER  &  HAY  DEN, 

FEBRUARY, 

1844. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlie  year  1844,  bj' 

WILLIAM  B.  HAYDEN, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


ANDOVER : 

ALLErf,  MORRILL  AND  WARDWELL, 

Printers. 


ro  THE  PRESENT  MEMBERS  AND  ALL  FORMER  MEMBERS 
OF  THIS  SEMINARY  ; 

My  beloved  brethren  ; 

The  following  Lectures,  which  are  published  in  compliance 
with  the  request  of  those  who  heard  them,  1  take  the  liberty  to 
dedicate  to  you,  in  token  of  my  esteem  and  affection  for  you, 
and  my  earnest  desire  that  you  may  all  enjoy  the  gracious  pres- 
ence and  blessing  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 
Yours  in  sincere  brotherly  love, 

LEONARD  WOODS. 

Theological  Seminary^ 
dndover^  Feb.  1844. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 


Characteristics  of  the  Seminary,  page  1. — Motives  for  undertak- 
ing the  discussion,  2. — Proposed  manner  of  conducting  it,  3. 

Preliminary  Remarks,  4 — 12 

(1)  All  Christians  together  form  one  body,  4. — And  they  should 
be  united  in  love  and  fellowship,  5. — Not  necessary  to  have 
the  same  forms,  6. — Good  men  and  their  errors  to  be  kept  dis- 
tinct, 7. — (2)  Some  definite  form  of  church  government  neces- 
sary, 8. — (3)  The  Scriptures  our  guide,  9. — May  we  vary  from 
them  on  account  of  a  change  of  circumstances,  10-12. — Two 
forms  of  church  government.  Prelacy,  and  popular  govern- 
ment, 12. — Prelacy  described  by  Hooker,  12. 

Objections  to  Prelacy. 
(1)  JVothing  in  Scripture  in  favor  of  it,  13-34. — Jewish  Priest- 
hood, 13. — Christ's  appointment  of  the  Seventy  and  of  the 
Twelve  considered,  15-20.  —  Matt.  18:  18,  examined  —  How 
applied  by  Episcopalians,  18-19. —  Christ's  instructions,  20-28. 
Bishop  De  Lancey's  argument  from  Christ's  promise,  Matt. 
23  :  20,  pp.  21-28. 

LECTURE  II. 

Prelacy  not  authorized  by  anything  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
29-32.  —  Bishops  at  this  day  proceed  differently  from  the 
Apostles,  29,  30. — Disputes  at  Antioch,  Acts  xv,  31. — Paul's 
address  to  the  elders  at  Ephesus,  Acts  xx,  32. — Prelacy  not 
supported  by  the  Epistles,  32-37. — Paul's  address  to  the  Phi- 
lippians,  32. — Ephes.  4  :  11,  "  Christ  gave   some  Apostles," 


VI  CONTENTS. 

etc.,  33. — Illustration  from  this  Seminary,  33,  34. — "  Whom  I 
delivered  unto  Satan,  1  Tim.  1  :  20,  p.  34. — 2d.  Objection — 
J^ew  Testament  opposed  to  Episcopacij  yS7-o5. — As  to  the  treat- 
ment of  offenders.  Matt.  18  :  15 — 17,  p.  38. — Paul's  direction 
how  to  treat  the  offender  in  the  Corinthian  church,  39. — Pro- 
ceedings, Acts  xv,  40. — Do  the  Episcopalians  proceed  thus  .^ 
41,  42. — Suppose  a  different  representation  of  the  matter  in 
Scripture,  43. — Have  circumstances  changed  so  as  to  justify 
a  departure  from  precept  and  example  as  to  discipline  ?  44-47. 
JVew  Testament  opposed  to  different  orders  in  the  ministry,  47- 
55.— Acts,  13:  1—3,  p.  48 —Acts,  xx,  49.— Tit.  1 :  5-7,  p.  51. 
Deacons,  51. — Laying  on  the  hands  of  the  Presbyters,  1  Tim. 
4:  14,  p.  52.— 1  Pet.  4:  1-3,  p.  53.— Reynolds,  Burnet,  Hol- 
land, Paley,  and  Onderdonk  acknowledge  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters to  have  been  the  same,  54. 

LECTURE  in. 

The  Fathers  not  inspired,  nor  instructed  orally  by  the  Jipostles  to 
make  alterations,  57-60.— Arguments  from  early  practice  ex- 
amined, 60. — Ecclesiastical  History  as  to  Prelacy  and  Infant 
Baptism,  61-65. — Testimony  of  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Ire- 
naeus,  particularly  Jerome,  62. — Another  supposition,  65-66. 
— Early  practice  cannot  bind  us,  66-68. — Saying  of  Tertul- 
lian,  "  whatever  is  first  is  true,"  etc.,  68. — The  Fathers  not 
agreed, — and  if  agreed,  no  authority  as  to  different  orders,  68- 
69. — Reasons  for  change,  69-76. — Introduction  of  Prelacy  by 
the  Fathers  unautiiorized,  72. — Prelacy  did  not  prevail  imme- 
diately after  the  Apostles,  76-81. — Three  propositions,  77. — 
Authors  referred  to,  80. — If  Episcopalians  could  find  no  evi- 
dence of  Prelacy  in  the  first  churches,  would  they  renounce 
it.?  81. 

LECTURE  IV. 

Apostolic  succession.  How  this  doctrine  is  held  by  High  church- 
men, 83-84. — Quotation  from  Edinburgh  Review,  84-87. — 
Quotation  from  Whately,  87-89.— Quotation  from  Usher  and 
Peter  King,  89.— The  ministry  divinely  appointed  but  in  dif- 


CONTENTS.  VU 

ferent  ways,  90. — Illustration  from  civil  government,  92-97. 
— How  Episcopalians  regard  civil  government,  94. — Succes- 
sion as  a  fact,  95. — Proper  conduct  of  ministers  as  to  rules  of 
order  among  different  denominations,  97-99. —  The  subject 
placed  on  the  ground  of  expediency^  99-111. — Are  Episcopal 
ministers  and  churches  better  than  others,  101-104. — Prelacy 
introduces  a  hurtful  distinction  among  ministers,  105-106. — 
Injures  and  degrades  the  inferior  clergy,  106-109. — Hinders 
church  members  from  doing  their  duty,  109-111. 

LECTURE  V. 
The  Episcopal  scheme  imposes  burdensome  restrictions^  113-24. — 
Reading  prayers,  113-15. — Dick's  objections  to  the  Liturgy, 
115-16. — Why  not  prescribe  sermons,  116-18. — Churching  of 
women,  118-19. — Liturgy  faulty,  119-35. — Irksome  uniformi- 
ty and  particularity,  120-3. — Arrangement  of  services  with- 
out reason,  123-4. — Baptismal  service  —  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion, 124-33. — HobarCs  explanation,  conditional  title,  etc.,  127 
-32 — Sponsors,  129-32. — Why  not  a  second  form  of  the  Bap- 
tismal service,  as  in  other  cases,  132-3. —  Unscriptural  stan- 
dard of  character^  13)3-35. — In  the  Funeral  service,  133-4. — In 
the  Order  of  Confirmation,  134-5. — Episcopacy  retains  many 
of  the  additions  to  gospel  instructions  made  in  the  Romish 
church,  135-43. — Holy  days,  137-41. — Mode  of  Baptism  among 
some  of  the  Fathers,  138. — Paul  testifies  against  observing 
days,  etc.,  139. —  Burdensome  observances,  139-40.  —  The 
whole  machinery  of  the  Episcopal  church,  140-1.— Danger  of 
beginning  to  introduce  human  inventions,  142-3. 

LECTURE  \T. 

Cerem.onials,  145-61. — Christ  and  the  Apostles,  145. — Principle 
of  Episcopalians  as  to  rites  and  Ceremonies,  146. — Influence 
of  the  ceremonies  of  the  Romish  church,  147-8. — Influence  of 
the  simple  rites  of  the  Puritans,  149-50. — I^esson  taught  by 
the  simplicity  of  the  divine  works,  150-2. — Simplicity  of  the 
appearance  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  153-4. — Attire  of  dig- 
nitaries in  the  Romish  Church  and  of  Episcopal  Bishops,  155- 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

61. — Bishop's  dress  at  consecration,  155-6. — Puts  on  addi- 
tional garments,  156-7. — Contrast  between  Romish  and  Epis- 
copal attire,  and  that  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  157-9. — Ca- 
non of  Church  of  England  as  to  dress,  159-60. 

LECTURE  VII. 

The  High  church  'principle^  163-92. — Rejected  by  many  Episco- 
palians,— as  Goode,  a  Layman,  (Bowdler)  and  Hoadley,  164- 
7. — High  churchism  un-churches  all  non-Episcopal  denomi- 
ations,  167. — Ko  evidence  in  support  of  its  claims^  168-173. — 
Testimony  of  Mosheim,  170.  —  Hallam  as  to  the  Church  of 
England,  170-1.— Neander,  \7\ -2.— Candid  feelings  of  Con- 
gregational ists  and  others  toicards  Episcopalians,  174-82. — 
Example  of  the  Puritan  Emigrants,  and  their  letter,  175-81. — 
What  use  Episcopalians  make  of  all  this,  179. — Proper  use, 
179-80.— De  Lancey  sees  "hostility  or  apathy,"  \^2-'i.— Right 
spirit  among  Episcopalians,  183. — Mar  Yohannan,  his  conduct 
and  letter,  183-8. — High  churchism  would  yield  under  a  plen- 
tiful effusion  of  the  Spirit,  188-91.— Will  yield  at  the  final 
judgment,  191-2. — The  more  candid  Episcopalians  subjected 
to  difficulties,  192. — Special  difficulties  of  those  who  take  or- 
ders in  the  Episcopal  church  after  having  been  in  the  minis- 
try before,  193. — Illustrated  by  the  supposed  case  of  Dr.  Pay- 
son,  193-7. — Conclusion,  198. 


Erratum. 
Page  121,  line  6  and  7  from  bottom — erase  the  words  —  "  who 
have  the  lesson  in  the  Prayer  Book  right  before  them."' 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 


LECTURE   I. 


The  Founders  of  this  Seminary,  and  the  subsequent 
Founders  of  Professorships  in  the  Seminary,  were  de- 
scendants of  the  Puritans,  and  were  all  Congregational- 
ists.  But  they  had  no  sectarian  zeal,  and  no  bigotry. 
On  the  contrary,  they  were  men  of  uncommon  enlarge- 
ment of  mind,  and  true  liberality  of  feeling.  Accord- 
ingly they  directed,  that  the  Seminary  should  be  open 
to  all  Protestants,  who  should  possess  the  requisite  lit- 
erary and  moral  qualifications.  It  has  been  open,  and 
equally  open  to  all  such,  and  has  granted  not  only  its 
general  privileges,  but  the  benefits  of  its  charity-funds, 
to  young  men  of  eight  different  denominations  of  evan- 
gelical Christians.  And  as  to  the  Professors,  it  was 
only  required  that  they  should  be  Congregationalists,  or 
Presbyterians.  Of  the  twelve  men  who  have  been 
officers  in  this  Institution,  two  have  been  Presbyterians, 
and  ten  Congregationalists.  Of  these  ten,  five,  perhaps, 
have  been  Congregationalists  of  what  I  may  call  the 
Massachusetts  order,  and  five  of  the  Connecticut  order, 
that  is,  favorable  to  Consociations.  In  the  choice  of 
Professors,  neither  Founders,  nor  Trustees,  nor  Visitors 
have  ever  made  any  distinction  between  Congregation- 
alists and  Presbyterians. 


5i  LECTURE     I. 

It  is  well  known  to  you,  my  young  brethren,  as  well 
as  to  my  Colleagues  in  office,  that  I  have  heretofore 
stood  aloof  from  the  controversies  of  the  day  respecting 
the  forms  of  Church  Government.  Indeed  my  reluc- 
tance to  take  any  part  in  these  controversies  has  been  so 
strong,  and  has  produced  such  an  effect  upon  my  course 
of  instruction  in  this  Seminary,  as  to  occasion  a  sus- 
picion, that  I  really  sided  in  opinion  with  other  denomi- 
nations, particularly  with  Episcopalians.  A  wish  to 
remove  misapprehension  on  this  subject,  and  to  make 
known  to  you  the  real  convictions  of  my  own  mind,  is 
one  of  the  motives  which  influence  me  to  undertake 
the  work  on  which  I  now  enter.  But  my  chief  motive 
is,  a  deliberate  and  full  persuasion,  that  God  requires 
this  service  of  me,  and  that  I  may,  in  this  way,  do 
somethincr  to  advance  the  welfare  of  his  kingdom.  With 
ihis  persuasion,  I  now  commence  the  work ;  intending 
to  cast  off  all  restraint,  and  to  speak  out  the  honest 
sentiments  of  my  heart.  And,  in  truth,  why  should  I 
not  do  so  on  this  subject,  as  >\  ell  as  on  any  other ;  espe- 
cially as  this  is  one  of  the  subjects  expressly  assigned  to 
me  by  the  Founders  of  the  Seminary  ?  Instead  there- 
fore of  making  any  apology  for  bringing  it  before  you 
more  prominently  at  this  time,  I  ought  rather  to  confess 
it  as  a  fault,  that  I  have  neglected  it  so  long. 

In  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  I  shall  do  as  I  am  ac- 
customed to  do  in  the  treatment  of  all  other  subjects. 
Here  in  my  own  Lecture  Room,  while  addressing  my 
beloved  pupils  on  a  subject  belonging  to  my  own  de- 
partment, I  shall  use  perfect  freedom.  So  far  as  I  have 
settled  opinions  respecting  Church  Government,  you 
may   expect  mc  to    utter   them  with  great   plainness, 


CHURCH      GOVERNMENT.  3 

though  it  must  be  with  brevity.  I  shall  say,  not  all  that 
I  could  say,  but  as  much  as  the  comparative  importance 
of  the  subject  seems  to  require,  and  as  much  as  a  suita- 
ble attention  to  other  subjects  in  theology  will  permit. 
And  in  all  that  I  say  relative  to  Prelacy,  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  observe  the  divine  precept  which  I  have  so 
often  inculcated  upon  you,  to  speak  the  truth  in  love. 
At  the  same  time,  I  shall  use  great  frankness,  both  in 
defending  my  own  opinions,  and  in  pointing  out  what 
I  conceive  to  be  erroneous  in  the  opinions  of  others. 
But  I  hope,  through  the  grace  of  Christ,  to  be  preserved 
from  whatever  would  violate  the  laws  of  candor,  or 
brotherly  kindness.  Protestant  Episcopalians  hold  to 
the  Protestant  principle,  that  in  regard  to  every  subject, 
it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  Christians  to  examine  and 
judge  for  themselves,  and,  on  all  proper  occasions,  to 
state  the  reasons  which  satisfy  them  of  the  soundness  of 
their  own  faith,  and  of  the  mistakes  of  those  who  differ 
from  them.  And  I  trust,  that  those  who  claim  and  ex- 
ercise this  right,  will  not  complain  of  me  for  doing  the 
same.  In  these  Lectures  I  shall  exercise  this  right 
freely,  without  respect  of  persons.  The  word  of  God  I 
hold  to  be  our  only  guide,  the  infallible  and  sufficient 
rule  of  our  faith  and  practice.  Whatever  truth  is  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  either  expressly,  or  by  plain  implica- 
tion, is  clothed  with  divine  authority,  and  we  are  to  re- 
ceive it  with  an  implicit,  confident  faith.  All  that 
comes  from  God  is  to  be  treated  with  reverence  and 
submission.  We  are  not  to  call  it  in  question.  If  God 
is  the  Teacher,  we  are  to  be  learners.  When  He  speaks, 
we  are  to  hear,  believe,  and  obey.  But  there  is  nothing 
of  human  origin,  which  is  too  high  or  sacred  to  be  called 


4  LECTURE    I  . 

in  question.  And  there  is  no  error,  however  sanctioned 
by  antiquity,  however  extensively  prevalent,  and  how- 
ever skilfully  interM'oven  with  weighty  truths,  which 
may  not  be  fearlessly  attacked,  nay,  which  ought  not  to 
be  openly  rejected.  The  honor  of  God  and  the  welfare 
of  man  are  most  effectually  promoted,  by  truth  without 
any  mixture  of  error.  The  loorcl  of  God,  which  is  the 
fountain  of  divine  truth,  is  perfect,  and  admits  of  no 
addition  or  improvement.  But  the  minds  of  men,  even 
the  wisest  and  best,  may  be  improved.  Their  habits  of 
thinking  and  reasoning  may  be  made  more  conformable 
to  the  truth,  and  their  knowledge  of  divine  things  in- 
definitely increased. 

In  order  to  do  justice  to  my  own  views  respecting 
Church  Government,  and  to  bring  the  subject  advan- 
tageously before  the  members  of  this  Seminary,  I  shall 
make  a  few  preliminary  remarks. 

My  first  remark  is,  that  the  whole  number  of  true  be- 
lievers on  earth,  taken  together,  form  one  society,  one 
body,  the  spiritual  church  or  kingdom  of  Christ.  All 
believers,  all  real  Christians  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
Christ.  They  are  all  his  disciples  and  followers.  He 
is  equally  their  Saviour  and  King.  They  are  subject  to 
the  same  supreme  authority,  and  the  same  holy  laws. 
They  are  all  engaged  in  the  same  spiritual  work,  and 
are  actuated  by  the  same  spiritual  affection.  They  are 
interested  in  the  same  precious  promises,  and  entitled  to 
the  same  eternal  inheritance.  And  they  will  all  at  last 
be  united  together  in  the  same  pure  and  blessed  society 
in  heaven.  They  also  stand  in  substantially  the  same 
relation  to  one  another.  How  much  soever  divided 
in  regard  to  outward  forms,  and  how  much  soever  they 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  5 

may,  for  the  present,  be  wanting  in  personal  esteem  and 
love  towards  each  other;  still,  being  equally  under  the 
government  of  Christ,  they  are  really  fellow-citizens. 
Being  children  of  the  same  Father,  they  are  all 
brethren.  God  regards  them  in  this  light;  and  his  judg- 
ment is  truth.  They  are  all  children  of  God,  and  all 
brethren.  Though  they  may  sometimes  overlook  it, 
they  are,  in  reality,  members  of  the  same  body,  and  as 
such  have  a  common  interest.  And  whatever  promotes 
the  spiritual  good  of  one,  really  promotes  the  good  of 
all.  And  whatever  injures  any  one  member  of  that 
spiritual  body,  really  injures  all. 

This  being  the  case,  the  duty  of  Christians  towards 
one  another  is  obvious.  They  ought  to  feel  and  act  in 
conformity  with  the  truth.  Being  really  members  of 
one  body,  they  ought  to  exercise  mutual  sympathy,  care 
and  kindness.  Being  truly  brethren,  children  of  the 
same  Father,  they  ought  to  have  sincere  mutual  affection, 
to  "love  as  brethren,"  and  to  take  pleasure  in  each 
other's  welfare.  If  any  member  of  Christ's  spiritual 
body  is  weak,  or  diseased,  or  defiled,  it  is  no  reason  why 
the  other  members  should  not  acknowledge  it  as  a 
fellow  member ;  though  it  is  a  reason  why  they  should 
sympathize  with  it,  and  endeavour  to  strengthen,  or  heal, 
or  cleanse  it.  Now  if  Christians,  disciples  of  Jesus, 
living  in  the  same  place,  or  in  different  places,  do,  in 
open  practice,  or  in  heart,  separate  themselves  from  one 
another ;  if  in  any  way  they  injure  one  another :  if, 
on  account  of  any  differences  in  opinion,  or  in  outward 
forms,  real  Christians  neglect  to  love  one  another,  or  to 
do  good  to  one  another ;  they  violate  the  obligations 
which  arise  from  their  unchangeable  relations  to  each 


6  LECTURE    I. 

Other,  and  to  their  common  Head.  They  sin  against 
truth.  They  sin  against  God,  who  acknowledges  and 
loves  all  believers,  as  his  children,  and  commands 
them  to  love  one  another.  They  sin  against  Christ, 
who  died  for  those  Christians  whom  they  disown  or 
neglect,  as  much  as  for  themselves,  and  who  requires 
them,  as  they  love  Him,  to  love  his  disciples.  They  sin 
against  their  fellow  Christians,  to  whom  they  owe  un- 
ceasing affection  and  fidelity.  They  sin  against  them- 
selves ;  as  they  owe  it  to  their  own  souls  to  cherish  the 
happy  feeling  of  kindness  towards  their  brethren  ;  and 
as  their  want  of  love  is  an  injury  to  their  fellow  disciples, 
which  will,  sooner  or  later,  return  in  bitterness  to  them- 
selves. 

I  am  far  from  intending  to  signify,  that  Christians  in 
different  places,  or  in  the  same  place,  are  absolutely 
bound  in  duty  to  adopt  the  very  same  forms  of  ecclesias- 
tical order.  The  most  cordial  love  and  fellowship,  and 
the  most  profitable  intercourse,  may  exist  among  Chris- 
tians under  different  forms,  as  is  evident  in  our  own 
country,  and  elsewhere.  But  if  differences  in  ecclesias- 
tical forms  are  joined  with  an  exclusive  spirit ;  then  the 
principle  of  love  and  fellowship,  so  often  enjoined  by  our 
Saviour,  is  violated,  and  the  Saviour  himself,  the  Head  of 
the  church,  is  offended  and  dishonored.  And  as  differ- 
ences in  external  forms  are  so  often  made  the  occasion 
of  breaking  the  bonds  of  affection  among  Christians  ; 
it  is  certainly  desirable  that  such  differences  should  be 
avoided,  and  that  the  same  modes  of  ecclesiastical  order 
should,  as  far  as  possible,  prevail.  Christians  should  ear- 
nestly endeavour  to  attain  to  a  substantial  uniformity. 
But  if  they  fail  of  reaching  this,  they  should  be  sure  not 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  7 

to  fail  in  the  spirit  of  brotherly  love,  and  not  to  violate 
the  principle  of  a  free  and  cordial  fellowship,  as  mem- 
bers of  ChrisVs  spiritual  kingdom. 

In  these  remarks  on  Christian  fellowship,  I  have  in 
mind  an  important  distinction  between  good  men,  con- 
sidered as  such,  and  any  opinions  or  practices  of  theirs 
which  we  deem  to  be  erroneous.  It  is  evident  from  the 
Scriptures  and  from  common  observation,  that  good  men 
may  adopt  views  which  are  more  or  less  incorrect  re- 
specting the  doctrines  of  religion,  and  more  particularly 
respecting  the  external  modes  of  worship  and  church 
government.  Now  it  is  very  clear  that  we  can  consist- 
ently acknowledge  them  to  be  Christians,  and  heartily 
receive  them  and  hold  communion  with  them  as  Chris- 
tians, while  we  bear  a  humble  and  affectionate,  but  faith- 
ful testimony  against  what  we  believe  to  be  erroneous. 
In  this  we  only  conform  to  the  truth.  For  the  truth  is, 
as  we  understand  it,  that  they  are  good  men,  called  of 
God,  born  of  his  Spirit,  and  heirs  of  his  kingdom.  We 
love  them  and  treat  them  as  such.  We  believe  Christ 
receives  them,  and  we  harmonize  with  him,  receiving 
those  whom  he  receives,  having  communion  with  Christ 
in  the  very  act  of  having  communion  with  his  followers. 
This  is  acting  according  to  the  truth.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  a  truth,  as  we  understand  it,  that  these  fellow 
Christians  are  chargeable  with  some  mistakes, — mis- 
takes, however,  which  may  exist  consistently  with  their 
possessing  the  character  of  true  Christians.  Still  they  are 
real  mistakes,  and  mistakes  in  the  view  of  Christ  their 
Saviour.  But  does  he  approve  these  mistakes,  or  pass 
by  them  as  of  no  consequence,  because  they  are  found  in 
his  disciples?   By  no  means.     Neither  should  we.     He 


8 


LECTURE    I 


bears  testimony  against  their  errors  by  his  word  and 
providence,  and  by  the  teaching  of  his  Spirit,  either  in 
their  minds,  or  in  the  minds  of  others,  or  in  both.  And 
his  testimony  will  sooner  or  later  be  effectual.  In  like 
manner  we  also,  in  a  way  suitable  to  our  condition,  should 
labor  to  point  out  the  mistakes  which  prevail  in  the 
church,  and  to  expose  their  hurtful  nature  and  tendency, 
having  a  desire  that  our  fellow  Christians  should  be  rid 
of  their  mistakes,  in  proportion  as  we  are  sincere  and  ar- 
dent in  our  love.  This  too  is  acting  according  to  the 
truth.  In  both  parts  of  the  conduct  here  described,  we 
are  perfectly  consistent.  Nor  can  we  be  consistent  in 
any  other  way.  If  we  refuse  to  acknowledge  go.od  men, 
and  to  receive  them  to  our  fellowship,  we  act  against 
Him  who  is  our  perfect  pattern,  and  who  loves  and  re- 
ceives all  believers.  And  it  is  equally  evident,  that  if 
we  countenance  the  mistakes  which  we  find  among  good 
men,  or  neglect  any  proper  efforts  to  correct  them,  we 
act  against  Him  who  came,  as  a  Prophet,  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  truth. 

My  second  remark  is,  that  some  definite  form  of  eccle- 
siastical government  is  essential  to  the  order  and  prosper- 
ity  of  the  church.  The  affairs  of  the  church  must  be 
administered,  and  must  be  administered  in  some  partic- 
ular mode.  Of  this  every  one  will  be  satisfied.  Gov- 
ernment must  evidently  have  some  form,  or  it  does  not 
exist.  And  no  arguments  are  necessary  to  show,  that 
the  more  definite  and  intelligible  its  form,  the  more  easi- 
ly and  effectually  may  it  be  executed.  Ecclesiastical 
government,  in  order  to  it^  just  administration,  requires, 
as  really  as  civil  government,  specific  principles  and  rules. 


CHURCH   GO VERNMENT.  9 

And  to  prevent  confusion  and  strife,  and  to  promote  the 
highest  degree  of  prosperity,  the  rules  of  government  in 
the  church  should  be  comparatively  few  in  number^  defi- 
nite and  simple,  well  understood,  firmly  established,  and 
strictly  observed.  In  ecclesiastical  as  in  civil  society,  it 
is  important  that  we  have  the  wisest  and  best  govern- 
ment. But  it  is  still  more  important  that  we  have  some 
government. 

My  third  remark  is,  that  in  settling  the  form  of  church 
government,  and  the  specific  rules  according  to  which  it 
is  to  be  administered,  we  must  carefully  observe  all  the 
•principles  which  are  made  known  in  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures. 

Christ  and  his  Apostles  must  be  regarded  as  infallible 
teachers.  Whatever  doctrine  they  taught,  we  receive  as 
divine  truth,  and  as  binding  upon  our  faith.  Whatever 
moral  precept  they  gave,  we  receive  as  of  divine  author- 
ity, and  as  binding  upon  our  practice.  And  why  are 
we  not  equally  bound  to  observe  whatever  they  taught 
relating  to  the  subject  now  under  consideration?  If  we 
find  any  direction  or  act  of  Christ,  or  his  Apostles,  re- 
specting the  government  of  the  church ;  why  are  we  not 
to  regard  it  as  expressing  his  mind,  or  the  mind  of  his 
inspired  Apostles,  as  to  the  proper  manner  of  administer- 
ing our  ecclesiastical  affairs?  And  why  is  not  an  ex- 
pression of  the  divine  will  as  obligatory  on  us  relative  to 
this  subject,  as  to  any  other  ?  How  can  we  feel  ourselves 
at  liberty  to  disregard  the  precepts  or  the  example  of  our 
infallible  guides  in  this  case,  more  than  in  any  other? 
If  in  regard  to  any  of  the  particular  forms  of  proceed- 
ing in  Church  Government,  we  are  left  without  any  defi- 


10  LECTUREI. 

nite  instruction  from  the  word  of  God ;  we  are  so  far  at 
liberty,  yea,  we  are  under  obligation,  to  make  a  proper 
use  of  eur  own  judgment  and  discretion.  In  the  case 
supposed,  (and  I  think  such  cases  really  occur,)  it  is  man- 
ifestly the  will  of  God,  that  we  should  proceed  accord- 
ing to  our  conviction  of  what  is  proper  and  expedient. 
But  if  we  find  general  principles  of  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment established  in  the  word  of  God ;  those  princi- 
ples are  to  govern  us.  They  constitute  what  we  may 
justly  call  the  Constitution  of  Church  Government.  Par- 
ticular legislation  may  be  called  for.  But  whenever  we 
undertake  to  legislate,  we  should  keep  our  eye  upon  those 
permanent  scripture  principles,  which  form  our  Ecclesi- 
astical Constitution,  and  should  remember,  that  any  act 
of  ours,  contravening  those  principles,  would  be  wholly 
unauthorized,  and  would  be  marked  with  a  rashness  and 
arrogance  very  displeasing  to  God. 

There  is,  in  my  view,  only  one  thing,  which  can  in 
the  least  modify  the  suggestions  I  have  now  made.  It 
is  admitted,  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  were  guided  by 
infallible  wisdom;  but  it  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  their 
wisdom  was  exercised  with  reference  to  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  times  in  which  they  lived,  every  direction  and 
act  of  theirs  having  been  certainly  right  iri  those  circum- 
stances. But  suppose  some  direction  or  act  of  those  in- 
fallible guides  related  to  some  matter  which  was  not  of 
a  moral  or  spiritual  nature,  and  which,  in  itself,  involved 
no  permanent  obligation ;  some  outward  form,  the  pro- 
priety and  expediency  of  which  depended  on  existing 
circumstances.  The  question  is,  whetiier,  in  other  and 
very  different  circumstances,  we  are  necessarily  bound 
to  conform  exactly  to  such  a  direction,  or  such  an  exam- 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  11 

pie.  And  this  is  my  reply.  If  the  direction  or  act  of 
Christ  or  his  Apostles  was  manifestly  grounded  upon  the 
peculiar  circumstances  then  existing,  and  if  circumstan- 
ces now  exist  which  are  materially  different,  and  so  dif- 
ferent, that  had  they  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  or  his 
Apostles,  the  direction  or  act  referred  to  would  unques- 
tionably have  been  different ;  in  such  a  case  we  should  be 
at  liberty  to  govern  ourselves  by  other  principles.  As 
an  illustration  of  this  matter,  take  the  judgment  which 
the  Apostle  gave  to  the  Christians  at  Corinth,  that  it 
was  expedient  for  them,  as  far  as  practicable,  to  abstain 
from  marriage.  His  judgment  or  advice  was  plainly 
grounded  on  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  time, 
namely,  the  persecutions  and  sufferings  to  which  Chris- 
tians were  then  exposed.  The  Apostle  expressly  refer- 
red to  those  circumstances,  as  the  reason  of  his  advice. 
And  had  it  not  been  for  those  circumstances,  no  one  can 
suppose  such  advice  would  have  been  given.  Now  when 
circumstances  become  essentially  different,  and  the  rea- 
sons on  v.'hich  the  advice  of  the  Apostle  was  grounded  no 
longer  exist;  it  is  manifest  that  we  are  not  bound  by 
that  advice,  but  are  at  liberty  to  regulate  our  conduct  by 
those  other  considerations,  which  are  obvious  to  reason, 
and  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God. 

The  principle  I  have  now  laid  before  you  is  very  clear, 
and  applies  to  the  present  subject.  Accordingly,  if  it 
shall  appear,  that  any  direction  or  act  of  Christ  or  his 
Apostles  relative  to  Church  Government,  was  evidently 
grounded  on  peculiar  circumstances  then  existing,  and 
not  on  general  and  immutable  principles ;  and  if,  at  the 
present  time,  those  circumstances  have  ceased,  and 
others,  having  a  very  different  bearing  on  the  subject^ 


12  LECTURE    I. 

have  come  in  their  place ;  then,  I  apprehend,  that  di- 
rection or  act  of  Christ  or  his  Apostles  is  not  to  govern 
us.  Indeed  there  may  be  imperious  reasons  why  we 
should  deviate  from  it.  Circumstances  may  now  exist, 
which,  had  they  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  or  his 
Apostles,  would  have  materially  varied  the  direction  or 
act  referred  to.  Take  one  or  two  instances.  Christ 
directed  the  man  who  was  healed  of  the  leprosy,  to  go 
and  show  himself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  which 
Moses  commanded  ;  and  Paul,  for  special  reasons  exist- 
ing at  that  time,  circumcised  Timothy.  No  man  can 
suppose  that  such  a  direction  would  have  been  given,  or 
such  an  act  performed,  in  circumstances  like  those 
which  now  exist.  And  of  course,  no  man  can  think 
that  either  the  one  or  the  other  is  to  govern  us. 

With  the  exception  of  such  cases, — if  such  are  found 
to  exist, — we  must  regard  any  direction  of  Christ,  or 
any  direction  or  act  of  his  Apostles,  in  regard  to  Church 
Government,  as  establishing  a  principle,  which  is  obli- 
gatory on  Christians  at  all  times.  What  the  real  facts 
in  the  case  are,  and  whether  circumstances  exist  which 
are  a  proper  ground  for  the  exception  above-mentioned, 
will  be  the  subject  of  inquiry  in  the  sequel. 

There  are,  in  a  general  point  of  view,  two  forms  of 
Church  Government.  ].  Prelacy,  or  government  ad- 
ministered by  Prelates,  or  Bishops.  2.  Government  of 
a  popular  character. 

Prelacy  is  thus  described  by  Hooker.  "  A  Bishop  is 
a  minister  of  God,  unto  whom  with  permanent  continu- 
ance, there  is  given,  not  only  power  of  administering  the 
word  and  sacraments,  which  power  other  Presbyters 
have,  but  also  a  farther  power   to  ordain  ecclesiastical 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  13 

persons,  and  a  power  of  chiefty  in  government  over 
Presbyters  as  well  as  laymen.  So  that  this  office  as  he 
is  a  Presbyter  or  Pastor,  consisteth  in  those  things 
which  are  common  to  him  with  other  Pastors,  as  in 
ministering  the  word  and  sacraments ; — but  those  things 
incident  to  his  office,  which  properly  make  him  a  Bish- 
op, cannot  be  common  to  him  with  other  Pastors.  Now 
— Bishops — are  either  at  large,  or  else  with  restraint ;  at 
large,  when  the  subject  of  their  government — is  not 
tied  to  any  certain  place.  Bishops  with  restraint  are 
they,  whose  government  over  the  church  is  contained 
within  some  definite,  local  compass  beyond  which  their 
jurisdiction  reacheth  not."  Episcopalians  expressly 
claim  for  their  system  the  sanction  of  Scripture  and 
the  Primitive  Church,  and  maintain  that  from  the 
Apostle's  time  there  have  been  three  orders  of  minis- 
ters in  the  Church  of  Christ,  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons. 

The  plan  of  my  Lectures  is  simple.  As  in  my  de- 
liberate and  settled  opinion,  I  differ  from  the  adv^ocates 
of  Prelacy,  I  shall  state  somewhat  particularly  the  rea- 
so?is  of  this  difference.  In  other  words,  I  shall  give  you 
my  chief  objections  against  Prelacy. 

My  first  objection  is,  that  the  leading  principles  of 
Prelacy,  as  now  understood  and  practised,  are  not  au- 
thorized by  the  Christian  Scriptures. 

The  constitution  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  has  been 
considered  by  some,  as  requiring,  or  warranting,  a  simi- 
lar constitution  in  the  Christian  ministry.  In  the  Jew- 
ish Priesthood  there  were  three  orders  ;  the  High  Priest, 
the  Priests,  and  the  Levites.  But  there  is  no  intimation 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Christian  ministry  was 


14  LECTUREI. 

to  be  formed  after  the  model  of  the  former  Priesthood. 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  takes  pains  to 
show  that  the  Jewish  Priesthood,  which  was  a  part  of 
the  Mosaic  ritual,  is  done  away ;  that  Jesus  Christ,  and 
he  only,  is  the  High  Priest  of  Christians ;  and  that  all 
who  are  set  apart  to  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel 
are  his  ministers,  or  servants.  There  is  a  wide  and  ob- 
vious difference  between  the  plan  of  the  gospel  ministry 
as  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  plan  of  the 
Priesthood,  as  laid  down  in  the  Old  Testament.  And 
whatever  may  be  pretended  by  some  Episcopalians,  they 
are  far  from  making  the  Jewish  Priesthood  their  model. 
The  three  orders  among  Episcopal  ministers  do  not  by 
any  means  correspond  with  the  orders  in  the  Jewish 
Priesthood.  And  any  attempt  to  make  them  more  near- 
ly correspond,  would  end  in  a  still  more  visible  and  un- 
warrantable departure  from  the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament. 

It  is  clear,  that  there  is  no  foundation  for  Prelacy  in 
any  of  the  appointments  or  instructions  of  Christ.  Take 
his  appointment  of  the  seventy  disciples,  who  were  sent 
forth  to  teach,  to  work  miracles,  and  to  call  sinners  to 
repent  and  believe.  This  arrangement  was  intended  for 
important  purposes  at  the  commencement  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  But  no  one  considers  it  as  perma- 
nent. And  if  it  had  been  designed  to  be  permanent,  it 
would  be  as  far  as  possible  from  giving  any  countenance 
to  the  Episcopal  scheme  of  three  orders  in  the  ministry. 

In  the  next  place,  Jesus  chose  twelve  of  his  disciples 
to  be  his  constant  companions,  to  hear  his  instructions 
and  witness  his  miracles,  and  thus  to  be  trained  up  for 
the  special  work  assigned  them.    "  He  ordained  twelve," 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  15 

says  Mark,  "  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he 
might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to 
heal  sicknesses  and  to  cast  out  devils."  These  disci- 
ples Jesus  finally  commissioned  to  go  forth  as  his  Apos- 
tles, and  qualified  them  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
be  witnesses  of  his  miracles,  and  particularly  of  his  re- 
surrection, and  to  be  infallible  teachers  and  guides.  See 
Matt.  28  :  19,  20.  Mark  16  :  15,  16.  Acts  1  :  8.  The 
work  to  which  they  were  called  was  a  special  and  mo- 
mentous work.  It  was  the  work  of  proclaiming  the  Gos- 
pel, founding  the  first  churches,  establishing  the  Chris- 
tian religion  by  preaching  and  by  miracles,  completing 
the  volume  of  inspiration,  and  exercising,  under  Christ, 
a  paramount  authority  in  all  the  concerns  of  religion. 
Their  commission  and  their  endowments  were  adapted 
to  the  peculiar  objects  which  were  then  to  be  accom- 
plished. Those  peculiar  objects  having  been  accom- 
plished, the  peculiarities  of  their  oflice  ceased.  They 
were  indeed  religious  teachers,  ministers  of  the  gospel  ; 
and  as  such,  they  have  siiccessoi's.  But  they  were  teach- 
ers and  ministers  in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  with  peculiar 
qualifications,  and  peculiar  authority.  Considered  in 
this  light,  they  have  no  successors.  Others  have  been 
sent  forth  as  tnissionaries,  as  the  word  Apostles  literally 
signifies.  But  those  first  Christian  missionaries  were 
distinguished  above  all  others  ;  and  the  word  Apostles, 
in  a  high  and  peculiar  sense,  has  been  appropriated  to 
them.  Now  how  does  the  fact  that  Christ  appointed  the 
Apostles  to  that  peculiar  work,  and  distinguished  them 
by  their  qualifications  from  other  ministers,  prove  that 
one  set  of  ministers  in  after  ages  is  to  fill  an  office  and 
possess  qualifications  above  others  ?     All  true  ministers 


16  LECTUREI. 

of  Christ  take  the  place  of  the  Apostles  considered  sim- 
ply as  gospel  ministers.  But  where  are  the  men  at  the 
present  day,  who  inherit  what  was  peculiar  to  the  Aposto- 
lic character  and  office,  or  what  distinguished  the  Apos- 
tles from  other  gospel  ministers  1  The  welfare,  and  even 
the  continuance  of  the  Church  requires  that  men,  pro- 
perly qualified,  should  from  time  to  time  be  set  apart  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry  ;  and  that  the  ministry  should 
be  a  permanent  institution.  In  this  sense  there  is  a  suc- 
cession, I  do  not  say  an  uninterrupted,  but  a  real  suc- 
cession, from  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time.  But  it 
can  no  more  be  proved  that  subsequent  ministers  of  the 
gospel  share  the  peculiarities  of  the  apostolic  office,  than 
that  they  share  the  peculiarities  of  the  office  of  Moses  or 
David.  When  a  special  and  temporary  work  is  to  be 
accomplished,  God  gives  men  special  qualifications,  and 
a  special,  temporary  commission.  And  when  there  is  an 
ordinary  work  to  be  accomplished,  a  work  which  is  to 
be  continued  from  age  to  age  ;  God  gives  men  qualifica- 
tions and  invests  them  with  an  office  suited  to  that  ordi- 
nary work.  As  far  as  the  work  to  be  done  by  ordinary 
ministers  of  the  gospel  bears  a  resemblance  to  the  work 
which  was  to  be  done  by  Moses,  or  Bavid,  or  the  twelve 
Apostles,  so  far,  and  no  farther,  can  we  suppose  a  resem- 
blance between  them  in  regard  to  their  respective  offices 
and  qualifications.  So  far  as  the  peculiarities  of  the 
work  assigned  to  Moses,  or  David,  or  the  Apostles  are 
concerned,  a  resemblance  between  them  and  ordinary 
ministers  is  precluded.  In  the  arrangements  of  divine 
wisdom,  means  are  always  adapted  to  ends. 

But  I  must  make  one  more  remark.     If  it  was  indeed 
the  design  and  the  appointment  of  Christ,  that  there 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  17 

should  be  permanently  a  superior  order  in  the  gospel 
ministry,  sharing  in  the  peculiarities  of  the  Apostolic  of- 
Jice,  it  would  certainly  be  reasonable  to  expect  them  to 
be  possessed  of  the  peculiar  qualifications  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  with  qualifications  above  those  of  the  inferior 
orders.  But  I  know  not  that  the  superior  order  of  min- 
isters in  the  Episcopal  church  pretend  to  be  indued  with 
any  of  the  peculiar  qualifications  of  the  Apostles,  or  with 
qualifications  above  those  which  are  found  in  the  inferior 
orders.  And  I  am  sure  that  the  work  which  Prelates 
take  upon  themselves  to  perform,  is  widely  different  from 
the  peculiar  work  of  the  Apostles, — in  some  respects  fall- 
ing short  of  it,  and  in  other  respects  going  beyond  it. 
Whereas,  if  Prelacy  were  founded  upon  the  superior  of- 
fice of  the  Apostles,  it  ought  to  have  substantially  the 
same  functions  assigned  to  it,  not  varying  from  its  stan- 
dard either  in  the  way  of  deficiency  or  excess.  But  in 
reality,  modern  Prelates  omit  altogether  the  principal 
works  which  were  peculiar  to  the  Apostolic  oflice,  such 
as  being  witnesses  of  the  life  and  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  casting  out  devils,  and  doing  other  miracles, 
preaching  and  writing  under  the  infallible  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  while  in  other  respects,  particularly  in 
assuming  and  exercising  exclusively  the  right  of  ordina- 
tion, they  transcend  the  powers  exercised  by  the  Apos- 
tles. But  the  consideration  of  this  point  comes  more 
properly  under  another  head.  It  is  sufficient  for  my 
present  purpose  to  show,  that  the  existence  of  the  supe- 
rior office  and  superior  endowments  of  the  Apostles,  af- 
fords no  ground  for  the  existence  of  a  superior  order 
among  gospel  ministers  in  subsequent  ages.  In  other 
words ;  its  having  been  the  Avill  of  Christ  that  the  Apos- 
2 


18  LECTUREI. 

ties,  for  the  special  purposes  then  to  be  accomplished, 
should  be  invested  with  distinguished  powers  and  hold  a 
special  and  distinguished  office,  does  not  prove  it  to  be 
his  will  that  a  particular  order  of  ministers  should  exist 
in  after  ages,  holding  an  office  like  that  of  the  Apostles, 
and  superior  to  that  of  ordinary  ministers.  Prelacy  can- 
not be  legitimately  founded  on  the  apostolic  office.  And 
how  it  comes  to  pass,  that  the  advocates  of  Prelacy  rest 
their  cause  so  much  on  the  superior  authority  belonging 
to  the  Apostles,  it  is  difficult  for  me  to  understand. 
Their  reasoning  on  this  point  appears  to  me  to  be  whol- 
ly inconclusive,  unless  they  can  show  that  there  is  now 
the  same  necessity  for  the  office  of  Prelates,  as  there  was 
originally  for  the  office  of  Apostles. 

It  may  be  thought  that  the  passage,  Matt.  18 :  18,  af- 
fords support  to  the  high  claims  of  Bishops.  Christ  said 
to  his  Apostles,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth, 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose 
on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  But  what  does  this 
prove  ?  The  Apostles,  as  appointed  and  qualified  by 
Christ,  were  invested  with  peculiar  authority,  and  were 
enabled  infallibly  to  exercise  their  authority  in  the  busi- 
ness of  Church  discipline  ;  for  this  was  the  subject  intro- 
duced in  the  three  preceding  verses.  They  were  to  have 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  such  measures,  that  their 
instructions  and  their  decisions  should  always  be  right, 
and  their  acts  in  the  affair  of  binding  and  loosing,  should 
be  confirmed  in  heaven.  But  this  proves  nothing  as  to 
three  orders  in  the  ministry.  And  it  is  no  proof  of  the 
superior  authority  of  Bishops,  unless  it  is  made  to  appear 
that  they  possess  the  miraculous  endowments  which  be- 
longed to  the  Apostles.    In  connection  with  this,  take  the 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  19 

passage,  John  20  :  22, 23,  "  Jesus  breathed  on  the  Apos- 
tles, and  said,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  soever 
sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whose 
soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  The  authori- 
ty here  intended,  whatever  it  was,  belonged  to  the  Apos- 
tles, as  indued  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  what  proof 
does  it  afford  of  the  authority  of  one  order  of  ministers 
in  the  Episcopal  church  above  that  of  other  orders? 
Episcopalians  themselves  do  not  regard  it  in  this  light. 
For  when  the  Bishop  ordains  Priests,  he  says  to  them, 
"  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a 
Priest^ — whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven ; 
and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained." 
Now  I  suppose  the  Priest  actually  exercises  the  authori- 
ty thus  committed  to  him  by  the  Bishop.  But  how  does 
he  exercise  it  1  This  appears  from  the  declaration  of 
absolution,  or  remission  of  sins,  made  by  the  Priest  in 
the  daily  service.  He  says  :  "  Almighty  God,  the  Fa- 
ther of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, hath  given  power  and 

commandment  to  his  ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce 
to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the  remission  of  their  sins. 
He  pardoneth  all  those  who  truly  repent,  and  unfeigned- 
ly  believe  his  holy  gospel.  Wherefore  let  us  beseech 
him  to  grant  us  true  repentance,  etc."  This  then  I 
judge  to  be  the  meaning ;  that  when  it  is  said  to  the 
Priest  at  his  ordination,  "  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven  ;"  he  is  authorized  to  declare,  that  God 
will  forgive  those  who  repent,  and  then  to  pray  for  re- 
pentance, etc.  This  is  what  the  Priest  does  in  the  af- 
fair of  absolution.  It  is  evident  that  the  Bishop  is  not 
at  all  distinguished  above  the  Priests,  in  this  affair  of 
pronouncing  absolution  to  the  penitent.     Whether  done 


20  LECTUREI. 

by  the  Bishop  or  Priest,  it  is  merely  declaring  that  mo- 
mentous doctrine  of  the  gospel,  that  God  will  forgive  the 
penitent.  And  the  right  to  declare  this  truth,  which  be- 
longs alike  to  all  gospel  ministers,  is  no  pfoof  of  the  su- 
periority of  one  order  above  another.  This  right,  or 
authority,  was  exercised  by  the  Apostles,  as  inspired 
men,  and  therefore  infallible.  It  is  exercised  by  minis- 
ters at  this  day,  not  as  inspired, — not  as  having  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  peculiar  sense  in  which  the  Apos- 
tles received  it,  but  as  instructed  by  inspired  men. 
Understood  as  a  declaration  of  a  gospel  truth,  followed 
by  a  prayer  for  repentance  and  pardon,  the  rite  or  prac- 
tice of  absolution  is  very  suitable,  and  occasions  no  mis- 
take. But  the  application  to  any  uninspired  men  of  the 
exact  words  which  Christ  addressed  to  his  inspired  Apos- 
tles, is,  in  my  apprehension,  quite  unwarrantable.  And 
I  am  glad  to  see  in  the  ordination  service,  that  a  second 
form  is  provided,  in  which  the  words  of  Christ  to  his 
Apostles,  John  20  :  22  are  omitted.  I  suppose  the  first 
form  or  the  second  is  used,  as  may  suit  the  feelings  of 
those  concerned. 

Having  considered  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Apostles  to  their  peculiar  office,  which 
can  give  support  to  Prelacy  ;  I  proceed  to  say,  that  Pre- 
lacy can  receive  no  support  from  the  instructions  of  Christ. 
If  we  could  find  that,  in  any  of  his  teachings  addressed 
publicly  to  the  multitude,  or  privately  to  the  Apostles,  he 
made  it  known  as  his  will,  that  there  should  in  follow- 
ing ages  be  different  ranks  or  orders  among  his  minis- 
ters, there  would  be  no  place  left  for  any  question  or 
hesitation  on  our  part.  But  no  intimation  of  this  kind 
appears  in  any  of  the  instructions  of  Christ  related  by 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  21 

the  Evangelists,  or  in  anything  which  the  inspired  Apos- 
tles said  or  did  after  the  ascension  of  Christ.  If  any  of 
the  Apostles  had  on  any  occasion  signified,  that,  in  their 
free  intercourse  with  Christ,  they  had  learnt  it  to  be  his 
intention,  that  there  should  be  different  orders  in  the 
ministry,  either  immediately  or  ultimately ;  this  would 
be  a  conclusive  argument  for  Prelacy.  But  nothing  like 
this  can  be  found. 

I  have  recently  read  a  sermon,  which  was  delivered 
in  Boston  last  December  by  the  Right  Reverend  Wil- 
liam H.  De  Lancey,  D.  D. — a  sermon  in  which  the 
American  Prelate  gives  a  description  of  the  character 
and  reward  of  a  faithful  Bishop,  which  is  worthy  of 
the  serious  attention  of  every  gospel  minister.  I  now 
refer  to  it,  because  it  contains  a  passage  relative  to 
the  subject  which  has  just  been  under  consideration. 
The  author  undertakes  to  reply  to  the  objection  urged 
against  Episcopacy, /rom  the  alleged  uncertainty  of  the 
succession  of  Bishops.  He  says  ;  "  Our  answer  is,  that 
the  promise  of  perpetuity  is  from  the  lips  of  him,  who 
has  explicitly  declared  that  His  words  shall  not   fail. 

*  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send    I  you.' 

*  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.'  The  same  power,  which  has  preserved  the 
Scriptures  true,  through  the  successive  copies  and  edi- 
tions, amidst  the  distractions  of  persecution,  the  perver- 
sities of  ignorance,  and  the  distortions  of  heresy  and 
schism,  so  that,  at  this  moment,  the  pure  word  of  God 
can  be  ascertained,  is  fully  adequate  to  the  faithful  pre- 
servation of  the  ministry." — "  It  is  not  to  human  plan- 
ning, but  to  divine  interposition,  that  we  appeal.  The 
promise  is  from  the  lips  of  Him  whose  power  is  adequate 


22 


LE  CTURE   I 


to  the  fulfilment." — Again  he  says ;  "  We  may  repose, 
with  unshaken  confidence,  on  the  ability  of  the  Promiser 
to  fulfil  his  pledge." 

We  heartily  agree  with  the  Prelate,  that  we  "  may  re- 
pose, with  unshaken  confidence,  on  the  ability  of  the 
Promiser  to  fulfil  his  pledge ;"  that  his  "  power  is  ade- 
quate to  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise,"  that  is,  "  to  the 
faithful  preservation  of  the  ministry  ;"  and  also  that  the 
promise  of  Christ  implies  "  a  succession  of  validly  com- 
missioned ministers,  to  the  end  of  the  world."  All  this 
we  hold  as  strongly  as  Episcopalians  can  do.  With  de- 
vout gratitude  we  receive  the  promise  of  our  Redeemer, 
as  a  blessed  encouragement  to  all  his  faithful  ministers, 
whether  in  the  Episcopal,  Congregational,  Presbyterian, 
or  Baptist  Church.  True  gospel  ministers  of  different 
denominations  have  relied  upon  this  gracious  promise, 
and  have  experienced  its  fulfilment,  and  have  been  ani- 
mated and  comforted  by  it  in  their  labors.  And  I  can- 
not doubt  that  ministers  of  other  denominations  have  re- 
ceived the  benefits  of  the  promise  as  uniformly,  and  in 
as  high  a  degree,  as  those  of  the  Episcopal  church.  Nor 
can  I  admit  that  the  benefits  they  have  thus  received,  are 
stolen  benefits, — benefits  to  which  Christ  has  given  them 
no  title.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  bestowed  the  bene- 
fits of  his  presence  as  readily  and  as  bountifully  upon 
good  ministers  who  are  out  of  the  Episcopal  church,  as 
upon  those  who  are  in  it.  The  Lord  Jesus  is  no  respect- 
er of  persons ;  and  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  gracious  pro- 
mise, he  makes  no  difference  among  pious  and  faith- 
ful ministers,  because  they  differ  as  to  outward  forms. 
If  Episcopalians  set  up  an  exclusive  claim  to  the  pro- 
mise, that  claim  we  know  will  not  be  sanctioned  by  their 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  23 

Lord  and  Master.  We  appeal  from  them  to  him.  And 
we  shall  continue  to  go  to  him,  and  plead  his  promise, 
and  beseech  him  to  grant  his  presence,  with  all  the  bless- 
ings involved  in  it,  not  only  to  us,  but  to  all  his  faithful 
ministers,  whether  they  follow  with  us,  or  not,  being  fully 
persuaded,  that  whatever  straitness  or  partiality  there 
may  be  among  poor,  imperfect,  erring  men,  there  is  none 
in  HIM.  Yes ;  we  shall  always  prize  that  promise  of 
Christ,  and  shall  apply  it  to  ourselves,  undeserving  as 
we  are.  Sensible  that  we  are  utterly  insufficient  for  the 
arduous  duties  of  the  ministry,  we  shall  trust  in  his  all- 
sufficient  grace,  praying  him  to  be  with  us,  according  to 
his  word.  And  why  should  any  of  those  who  differ  from 
us  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  forms,  attempt  to  exclude 
us  from  the  benefits  of  Christ's  precious  promise?  In 
his  infinite  fulness  is  there  not  enough  for  them,  and  for 
us  1  With  our  present  views,  we  shall  continue  to  ap- 
propriate the  promise  to  ourselves.  And  if  we  are  ever 
convinced  that  it  does  not  belong  to  us,  we  shall  at  once 
abandon  the  ministry,  well  knowing  the  truth  of  Christ's 
declaration  ;  "  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing." 

The  author  of  the  able  and  edifying  sermon  referred 
to  considers  the  promise  of  Christ,  "  Lo  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  as  a  clear  and 
certain  proof  of  the  perpetual  succession  of  Bishops. 
Bishops,  that  is,  Prelatical  Bishops,  he  regards  as  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles.  In  a  qualijied  sense,  Bish- 
ops, such  as  he  describes  in  his  sermon,  are  doubtless 
successors  of  the  Apostles ;  that  is,  they  follow  or  come 
after  the  Apostles,  and  sustain  an  office  in  so?ne  respects 
like  that  of  the  Apostles.  In  a  limited  sense,  they  carry 
forward  the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry,  which,  in  a 


24  LECTURE    I. 

higher  sense,  was  committed  to  the  Apostles  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  this  qual- 
ified sense,  I  hold  that  faithful  Bishops  are  successors  of 
the  Apostles.  But  are  they  the  only  successors  1  And 
does  the  promise  of  Christ  belong  exclusively  to  them  ? 
If  Bishops  are  the  only  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  if 
the  promise  of  Christ  belongs  to  none  except  Bishops ; 
then  what  becomes  of  the  great  body  of  gospel  ministers 
in  the  Episcopal  church  and  in  other  parts  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  who  are  not  Bishops  ?  There  are  in  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth  many  hundreds  of  gospel 
ministers  to  one  Prelate.  What,  I  ask,  becomes  of  all 
these,  left  as  they  are  without  the  presence  of  their  Lord 
and  Master  ?  But  if  the  promise  relates  to  Gospel  min- 
isters who  are  not  Bishops ;  then  it  may  be  fulfilled  to- 
wards a  succession  of  such  ministers.  And  if  so,  how 
does  it  imply  a  succession  of  Bishops?  And  wherein 
lies  the  strength  of  the  argument,  by  which  the  author 
attempts  to  prove  the  perpetual  succession  of  Bishops, 
that  is,  Prelates,  from  the  promise  of  Christ? 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  promise  belongs  primarily  and 
by  way  of  eminence  to  Bishops,  and,  in  a  lower  sense, 
to  the  other  order  of  ministers,  ordained  by  Bishops. 
But  how  is  this  made  to  appear?  There  is  nothing  in 
the  promise  which  indicates,  that  it  was  meant  to  be  un- 
derstood in  these  different  senses,  as  applied  to  different 
orders  of  ministers.  The  promise  is  very  simple.  "  Lo, 
I  am  with  you  alvvay,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
With  whom  ?  He  does  not  say  with  one  order  of  min- 
isters in  a  higher  sense,  and  with  another  order  in  a  low- 
er sense.  He  promised  to  be  with  the  Apostles,  and,  by 
implication,  with  others  after  them,  who  should  possess 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  25 

the  character  of  gospel  ministers,  and  be  engaged  in  car- 
rying on,  in  a  restricted  sense,  the  great  work  which  the 
Apostles  began.  The  promise  may  indeed  be  fulfilled 
in  different  measures,  as  other  promises  are.  Ministers 
who  are  distinguished  for  their  piety  and  faithfulness, 
such  as  Leighton,  Scott,  Cecil,  Henry  Martyn,  Baxter, 
Edwards,  Brainerd,  Payson,  Andrew  Fuller,  and  Davies, 
w  ill  undoubtedly  enjoy  the  presence  of  Christ  in  a  higher 
degree,  than  ministers  less  pious  and  faithful.  And  this 
is  equally  true  in  regard  to  ministers  of  different  denom- 
inations. The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  a  Great  King ;  and 
in  administering  the  affairs  of  his  great  kingdom,  he  does 
not  proceed  according  to  the  narrow  and  exclusive  no- 
tions which  so  often  influence  the  minds  of  men.  His 
thoughts  and  ways  are  exceedingly  different  from  ours. 
Show  me  a  gospel  minister,  of  whatever  name,  who  is 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  preaches  the  truth  in  love 
and  fidelity ;  and  you  show  me  one,  to  whom  Christ  will 
specially  grant  his  promised  presence.  And  surely  the 
fulfilment  of  his  promise  manifests  to  whom  he  intended 
it  should  belong.  For  does  he  not  act  according  to  his 
intentions  ?  I  ask  the  pious  author  of  the  sermon  before 
me,  and  other  Episcopal  ministers  like  him,  whether  it  is 
not  so.  And  they  will  permit  me  also  to  ask,  whether 
they  think  their  Blessed  Lord  is  present  with  them,  be- 
cause they  are  Episcopalians, — or,  because  they  truly 
love  him,  and  faithfully  preach  his  gospel.  If  they  say, 
though  I  presume  they  will  not, — yet  if  any  of  them  say, 
for  the  former  reason,  that  is,  because  they  are  Episco- 
palians ;  then  I  ask,  for  what  reason  Christ  is  so  evident- 
ly and  so  graciously  present  with  those  ministers  who 
are  not  Episcopalians '?     But  if  they  say,  for  the  latter 


Jib  LECTURE    I. 

reason,  that  is,  because  they  truly  love  him,  and  do  the 
work  of  the  ministry  faithfully ;  then  they  will  doubtless 
admit,  that  other  ministers,  possessing  the  same  character, 
may  regard  the  promise  as  made  to  them,  and  may  ex- 
pect to  realize  its  accomplishments.  There  are,  besides 
Bishops,  multitudes  of  gospel  ministers,  who  have  the 
heart  and  who  do  the  work  of  true  and  faithful  servants 
of  Christ,  and  to  whom  he  does  in  fact,  and  according 
to  his  intention,  fulfil  his  precious  promise.  And  if  all 
that  is  implied  in  the  promise  has  or  may  have  its  accom- 
plishment in  a  succession  of  those  whom  the  omniscient 
Redeemer  regards  and  treats  as  good  and  faithful  minis- 
ters, though  not  Bishops ;  then  the  question  returns ; 
how  does  the  promise  prove  a  succession  of  Bishops,  in 
distinction  from  other  gospel  ministers?  The  promise 
of  Christ  is  a  matter  of  great  practical  moment ;  and  I 
have  chosen  to  treat  it  as  such.  And  let  me  say  again, 
so  that  it  may  not  be  forgotten  ; — if  being  included  with- 
in the  reach  of  this  gracious  promise,  and  enjoying  the 
benefits  of  its  fulfilment,  proves  men  to  be  successors  of 
the  Apostles ;  then  faithful  Congregational,  Presbyterian, 
and  Baptist  ministers  are  such  successors,  as  truly  as 
Bishops ;  and  the  promise  no  more  proves  the  continued 
existence  of  these,  than  of  those.  The  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  by  the  unchangeable  Promiser,  certainly  shows 
how  he  intended  his  promise  to  be  understood  and  ap- 
plied. Pious  and  faithful  Bishops,  such  as  are  set  before 
us  in  this  sermon,  are,  I  doubt  not,  in  an  important, 
though  qualified  sense,  successors  of  the  Apostles,  to 
whom  the  promise  belongs.  Pious  and  faithful  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons  in  the  Episcopal  church,  are  also  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles.     Otherwise,  how  could  they. 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  27 

equally  with  Bishops,  be  entitled  to  the  promise  ?  Thus 
far  the  advocates  of  high  Church  principles  agree  with 
us.  And  here  they  stop.  But  He  who  is  Head  over 
all  things  to  the  church,  which  he  bought  with  his  own 
blood,  does  not  stop  here.  They  limit  the  succession 
of  true  gospel  ministers  and  the  intent  of  Christ's  prom- 
ise to  Bishops,  and  those  who  are  ordained  by  Bishops. 
Not  so  with  him  who  made  the  promise,  and  who  has  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth.  He  speaks  and  acts  on 
larger  principles.  There  is  nothing,  nothing  at  all,  either 
in  the  language  of  the  promise,  or  in  its  obvious  mean- 
ing, or  in  the  manner  of  its  fulfilment,  which  restricts  it 
to  a  succession  of  Bishops,  or  which  proves  the  exis- 
tence of  such  a  succession,  any  more  than  a  succession 
of  other  gospel  ministers.  And  if  we  would  agree  with 
our  Blessed  Lord, — if  we  would  have  our  views  and  feel- 
ings correspond  with  his  mind,  as  expressed  in  his  word 
and  providence;  we  must  guard  not  only  against  pride 
and  bitterness,  but  against  all  narrowness  and  bigotry 
and  party  spirit,  and  must  pray  for  enlargement  of  heart, 
and  must  rejoice  in  the  wide  extent  of  Christ's  promise, 
and  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  his  love. 

It  is  in  this  way  that  I  dispose  of  the  passage  quoted 
above,  in  which  the  author  cites  the  promise  of  Christ, 
Matt.  28:  20,  as  a  plain,  conclusive  argument,  on  which 
he  confidently  relies,  to  prove  the  perpetual  succession  of 
Bishops.  I  maintain,  that  neither  the  occasion,  nor  the 
language  of  the  promise,  nor  its  obvious  meaning,  nor 
the  facts  of  its  accomplishment,  prove  any  such  thing. 
Episcopalians  may  affirm,  that  it  is  a  principle  settled 
and  certain,  that  Bishops  are  the  only  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  and  that  they  and  those  ordained  by  them  are 


28  LECTURE    I. 

the  only  authorized  and  lawful  ministers  of  Christ. 
What  I  have  aimed  to  show  in  these  remarks,  is,  that 
this  principle  cannot  be  proved  from  the  promise  of  Christ. 
And  I  will  only  add,  that  I  can  no  more  admit,  that 
Bishops  and  those  who  are  ordained  by  them,  are  the 
only  authorized  and  lawful  ministers  of  Christ,  than  that 
hereditary  kings  and  nobles  are  the  only  authorized  and 
lawful  rulers. 


LECTURE  II. 


In  the  last  Lecture,  I  stated  it  as  my  first  objection 
against  Prelacy,  that  it  is  not  authorized  hy  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures.  In  discussing  this  point,  I  referred 
you  particularly  to  the  appointments  and  instructions  of 
Christ,  during  his  public  ministry  on  earth.  And  I 
think  it  was  made  manifest,  that  there  is  nothing  in  his 
appointment  of  the  seventy  disciples,  or  of  the  twelve 
Apostles,  or  in  the  instructions  he  gave  them,  which  af- 
fords the  least  support  to  Prelacy. 

Let  us  now  inquire  whether  anything  favorable  to 
Prelacy  can  be  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ; — any- 
thing in  the  conduct  of  those,  whom  Christ  appointed 
to  preach  his  gospel  and  propagate  his  religion,  which 
implied,  that  there  should  be  three  orders  in  the  minis- 
try, and  that  one  of  these  orders,  namely.  Bishops,  should 
exercise  authority,  not  only  over  the  churches,  but  over 
two  subordinate  orders  of  ministers.  Had  the  Apostles 
so  understood  the  matter,  they  would  doubtless  have  said 
or  done  something  to  show  it.  For  they  were  commis- 
sioned and  qualified  to  be  witnesses  and  ministers  of 
Christ,  and,  in  his  name,  to  teach  the  doctrines  and  laws 
of  his  kingdom,  to  establish  churches,  and  to  settle  every- 
thing pertaining  to  their  order  and  prosperity.  And 
it  was  manifestly  of  great  importance,  that  they  should 
give  a  right  direction  to  the  great  concer<is  of  Christian- 
ity at  the  outset.    What,  I  ask,  is  the  practice  of  zealous 


30  LECTURE    II. 

Bishops  of  the  present  day,  who  believe  themselves  call- 
ed to  fill  an  office  similar  to  the  Apostles  ?  Do  they  not 
on  all  occasions  make  the  doctrine  of  Prelacy  very  pro- 
minent? And  if  they  go,  as  the  excellent  Bishop  of 
Calcutta  and  other  Bishops  have  gone,  to  places  where 
Christ  has  not  been  known,  and  engage  in  the  great 
work  of  preaching  the  gospel  and  establishing  churches; 
do  they  not,  among  the  very  first  tilings,  make  known 
their  principles  of  Church  government  1  And  whenever 
they  organize  a  church,  do  they  not  take  good  care  to 
have  those  principles  well  understood,  and  to  arrange 
everything  according  to  the  Episcopal  plan  1  Their  pe- 
culiar belief  naturally  leads  to  such  a  practice.  And 
if  their  belief  is  right,  their  practice  is  right ;  and  every 
one  who  honestly  entertains  that  belief,  will  show  it  by 
his  practice.  But  how  was  it  with  the  Apostles,  who 
were  called  of  God  to  take  the  lead  in  establishing  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  among  Jew?  and  Gentiles,  and  who 
were  responsible  for  giving,  from  the  first,  a  right  direc- 
tion and  form  to  the  churches  ?  If  they  had  been  led  by 
the  teaching  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  hold  the 
ecclesiastical  principles  now  held  by  Episcopalians; 
would  they  not  have  been  as  honest  and  faithful  as  Epis- 
copalians now  are  ; — and  would  they  not  have  done,  in 
some  good  measure,  as  Episcopalians  do  ?  Would  they 
have  been  chargeable  with  that,  which  Episcopalians 
would  now  think  an  unpardonable  neglect?  Look,  then, 
for  yourselves,  into  the  history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos' 
ties,  and  carefully  notice  their  particular  proceedings 
and  instructions,  and  see  whether  they  did  as  Episco- 
palians do ; — see  whether  they  did  anything  or  taught 
anything,  which  shows,  that  they  really  meant  to  estab- 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  31 

lish  the  Episcopal  plan  of  Church  government.  Do 
you  find  anything  in  the  account  given  of  the  choice  of 
one  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas^?  Do  you  find  anything  in 
the  proceedings  of  the  Apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost? 
Do  you  find  anything  in  Chap,  vi.,  where  we  have  an 
account  of  the  choice  of  seven  men,  commonly  called 
Deacons,  whom  the  Apostles  set  apart  to  their  work  by 
prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands  ?  What  is  there  in 
this  transaction,  which  is  favorable  to  any  part  of  the 
Episcopal  plan  of  Church  Polity  ?  These  Deacons  or 
servants  of  the  church  were  chosen  and  set  apart  as  al- 
moners, that  is,  distributers  of  the  charities  of  the  church  ; 
not  as  an  order  of  gospel  ministers  or  preachers,  though 
some  of  them  afterwards  preached.  But  what  resem- 
blance has  this  transaction  to  the  proceeding  of  Bishops 
in  ordaining  those  whom  they  call  Deacons,  and  who 
constitute  the  lowest  order  of  Episcopal  ministers? 

In  Acts  XV.  we  are  informed  of  disputes  and  difficul- 
ties which  arose  at  Antioch  respecting  circumcision,  and 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  were  adjusted.  It  was  a 
very  important  aflfair,  and  required  the  exercise  of  the 
highest  wisdom  and  the  highest  authority.  But  by  whom 
was  it  decided  1  Not  by  a  Bishop  ;  not  by  an  Apostle, 
nor  by  a  number  of  Apostles ;  but  by  the  Apostles,  and 
Elders,  and  "  the  whole  church"  at  Jerusalem.  Was 
there  anything  in  the  mode  of  proceeding  on  that  occa- 
sion, which  was  in  any  respect  like  that  which  is  mark- 
ed out  by  the  rules  of  the  Episcopal  church  ?  Was  there 
any  appearance  of  a  Prelate,  either  at  Antioch  or  at  Je- 
rusalem ?  In  those  large  churches,  was  there,  in  this 
important  and  difficult  case,  any  exercise  of  Prelatical 
authority,  even  by  the  Apostles  ?     But  I  shall  have  oc- 


32  LECTURE    II. 

casion  to  advert  to  this  case  again.  All  that  my  present 
object  requires  is  to  show,  that  what  took  place  at  An- 
tioch  and  Jerusalem,  as  here  related,  gives  no  support  to 
the  Episcopal  plan  of  Church  Polity. 

The  next  passage  in  the  Acts,  which  relates  to  our 
subject  is  Chap.  xx.  The  Apostle  Paul  gathered  toge- 
ther the  Elders  or  Presbyters  of  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  that  he  might  make  his  farewell  address  to  them. 
I  have  only  to  say  here,  that  there  is  nothing  in  his  ad- 
dress to  those  Presbyters,  or  in  what  we  learn  of  the 
state  of  things  in  the  church  at  Ephesus,  which  can  give 
any  support  to  Prelacy.  Let  any  one  carefully  read  this 
chapter,  and  then  say,  whether  there  is  any  reason  to 
think,  that  Paul,  who  had  a  direct  agency  in  the  first 
formation  of  that  church,  which  doubtless  comprised  se- 
veral congregations,  established  different  orders  of  min- 
isters ?  Is  there  anything  which  implies,  that  one  of 
those,  called  Elders,  was  invested  with  authority  over 
the  others  ?  Taking  everything  into  view,  can  we  find 
the  least  evidence,  that  Paul  did,  what  any  Episcopal 
Bishop  would  now  do  in  a  similar  case,  that  is,  that, 
when  he  established  the  church  or  churches  at  Ephesus, 
he  introduced  Prelacy,  and  that,  among  the  officers  of 
the  church  whom  he  addressed,  there  was  a  Prelate,  that 
is,  a  Bishop  having  authority  over  the  Presbyters?  But 
this  case  will  be  brought  up  again  under  another  head. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  Epistles,  and  inquire  whe- 
ther thry  give  any  support  to  Episcopacy. 

Paul  directed  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  thus  :  "  To 
all  the  saints  at  Philippi,  with  the  Bishops  and  Deacons." 
This,  you  will  see  in  a  moment,  is  no  argument  for  Pre- 
lacy, as  there  is  abundant  evidence.  Episcopalians  them- 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  33 

selves  being  judges,  that  BisJiop  and  Elder,  or  Presby- 
ter, were  used  by  the  Apostle,  as  synonymous  terms. 
This  appears  also  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  Chap.  i.  Paul 
directs  Titus  to  ordain  Elders,  adding  a  particular  de- 
scription of  the  qualifications  which  they  must  possess, 
and  showing  clearly,  before  he  has  done,  that  by  Bishop 
and  Elder  he  means  the  same  officer.  In  Ephes.  4:11, 
the  Apostle  says,  that  Christ  "  gave  some  Apostles,  and 
some  prophets,  and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors 
and  teachers — for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  etc."  But 
what  is  there  in  all  this,  which  is  favorable  to  the  Epis- 
copal scheme  ?  Here,  indeed,  different  orders  of  minis- 
ters are  mentioned  ;  but  they  are  Jive  orders,  not  three  ; 
and  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of  the  orders  established 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  either  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or 
Deacons.  Besides,  the  Apostle  does  not.  give  the  least 
intimation  that  one  of  these  orders  was  set  over  the  other 
orders. — It  will  be  natural  to  take  this  passage  in  con- 
nection with  1  Cor.  12 :  28 ;  "  God  hath  set  some  in 
the  church,  first  Apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,  after  that  miracles,  gifts  of  healing,  helps,  go- 
vernments, diversities  of  tongues."  Here  are  eight  va- 
rieties. The  first  three  are  orders  of  ecclesiastical  offi- 
cers ;  but  they  have  no  correspondence  with  the  three 
orders  in  the  Episcopal  church.  The  passage  seems  to 
be  intended  to  mark  different  classes  of  duties,  or  diffe- 
rent departments  of  labor,  rather  than  different  orders  or 
ranks  of  church  officers.  If  you  will  excuse  me,  I  will 
attempt  some  illustration  of  the  Apostle's  meaning,  by, 
what  exists  in  this  Seminary.  Here  the  officers  are  all 
Professors,  all  gospel  ministers,  all  Pastors  and  Teach- 
ers ;  and  all  are  of  the  same  rank,  and,  in  many  respects, 
3 


34 


LECTURE    II. 


attend  to  the  same  duties.  Yet  they  fill  different  depart- 
ments, and  with  reference  to  those  departments,  they 
have  different  titles,  marking  the  particular  work  assign- 
ed to  them ;  as,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  Profes- 
sor of  the  Hebrew  Language  and  Literature,  Professor 
of  Christian  Theology,  Professor  of  Sacred  Rhetoric, 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  But  instead  of  this 
they  might,  properly  enough,  be  designated  by  five  dis- 
tinct names,  as  the  Greek  Exegete,  (if  I  may  coin  a 
word,)  the  Hebrew  Exegete,  the  Theologian,  the  Rhe- 
torician, and  the  Historian  ; — though  it  comes  out,  that 
they  all,  in  a  sort,  teach  exegesis,  and  Rhetoric,  and 
History,  and  all,  doubtless,  are  Theologians. 

It  may  be  thought  that  the  case  of  Matthias,  and  Bar- 
nabas, and  some  others,  who  were  called  Apostles,  fur- 
nishes an  argument  in  favor  of  Prelacy.  As  to  Mat- 
thias ;  he  was  appointed  to  fill  a  vacancy  made  by  the 
apostasy  of  Judas,  and  so  came  to  be  one  of  the  twelve 
Apostles,  not  a  successor  of  the  Apostles.  And  it  is  very 
easy  to  account  for  it  that  Barnabas  and  others  should  be 
called  Apostles,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  engaged  as 
Missionaries  in  the  same  general  work  of  preaching  the 
gospel  with  the  Apostles,  and  perhaps  being  indued  in 
some  measure  with  miraculous  gifts ;  though  the  chief  pe- 
culiarities of  the  Apostolic  office  did  not  belong  to  them. 
At  any  rate,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  sustained  an 
office  like  that  of  Prelates ;  and  of  course,  they  cannot 
be  referred  to  as  affording  any  support  to  Prelacy. 

Episcopalians  have  argued  in  favor  of  Prelacy  from  1 
Tim.  1  :  20.  Paul,  speaking  of  Hymeneus  and  Alexan- 
der, says :  ''  Whom  I  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they, 
may  learn  not  to  blaspheme."     The  sum  of  the  argu- 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  35 

ment  is  this :  Paul,  in  the  exercise  of  his  authority  as 
an  Apostle,  administered  church  discipline  upon  two  no- 
torious offenders  in  the  church  at  Ephesus.  Bishops  are 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  are  in  this  respect  in- 
vested with  the  same  authority ;  and  therefore  it  belongs 
to  them  to  administer  church  discipline.  Let  us  examine 
this  argument. 

The  punishment  of  these  apostates  at  Ephesus,  like 
that  of  the  incestuous  person  at  Corinth,  was,  I  think, 
preternatural.  The  language  plainly  denotes  something 
more  than  simple  excommunication.  The  power  of  the 
Apostle  to  inflict  such  punishment,  was  miraculous,  and 
was  as  real  though  not  so  remarkable  an  instance  of  su- 
pernatural agency,  as  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  An- 
nanias  and  Sapphira.  This  miraculous  power  belonged 
preeminently  to  the  Apostles.  But  surely  the  exercise 
of  this  power  in  some  extraordinary  cases  was  not  in- 
tended to  make  void  the  precept  of  Christ,  in  Matt,  xviii, 
as  to  the  ordinary  treatment  of  offences.  If  the  fact,  that 
Paul,  by  his  supernatural  power,  as  an  Apostle,  inflicted 
such  a  punishment  upon  heinous  offenders,  proves  any- 
thing relevant  to  the  case  in  hand,  it  proves  that  modern 
Bishops  are  competent  to  do  the  same  as  the  Apostle 
did.  And  if  it  proves  this,  it  proves  that  Bishops  may 
now  write  inspired  Epistles,  as  the  Apostles  did. 

Episcopalians  hold,  that  the  church  at  Ephesus  had  a 
Bishop,  that  is,  Timothy,  as  well  as  Presbyters ;  and 
they  hold  that  a  Bishop  is  entrusted  with  the  same  pow- 
er of  administering  church  discipline,  as  belonged  to  the 
Apostles.  Timothy,  then,  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  had 
this  power,  and,  no  doubt,  he  knew  that  he  had  it.    Why 


36  L  E  C  T  U  R  E    1 1  . 

did  he  not  exercise  it  ?     And  why  did  Paul,  who  had 
given  it  to  the  Bishop,  interfere  with  it  ? 

According  to  the  reasoning  of  Episcopalians,  the  Apos- 
tle's exercising  the  power  of  church  discipline  in  this 
case,  is  a  proof  that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  church,  or 
the  Elders  of  the  church.  And  does  it  not  equally  prove 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  Bishop  ?  The  argument 
then  seems  to  stand  thus  :  A  BisJioj),  that  is,  Timothy^ 
is  a  successor  of  the  Apostles,  and  is  immsted  with  the 
sole  poioer  of  administering  discipline  in  the  church.  But 
the  Apostle  comes  forward,  and  exercises  that  power  him- 
self in  the  very  diocese  of  Bishop  Timothy ; — ivhich 
shows  very  clearly,  they  say,  that  the  power  does  not  he- 
long  either  to  the  church,  or  to  the  Presbyters ;  and,  if 
the  argument  is  straight,  it  shows  equally,  that  it  docs 
not  belong  to  the  Bishop. 

The  necessary  limits  of  these  Lectures  forbid  me  to 
enlarge  on  this  topic.  But  if  we  should  extend  our  in- 
quiries farther,  the  result  would  be  the  same ;  namely, 
that  Prelacy,  as  now  understood  and  practised,  is  not 
founded  upon  the  Christian  Scriptures.  The  ablest  ad- 
vocates of  Prelacy  do  not  pretend  that  it  is.  This  is  my 
first  objection  to  the  Episcopal  scheme  of  Ecclesiastical 
Polity.  And  it  is  in  my  mind,  an  objection  of  no  small 
weight.  For  it  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  Christ  was  the 
Founder  and  Head  of  the  church  ;  and  it  is  surely  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  he  would,  in  his  own  personal 
ministry,  or  by  the  ministry  of  those  whom  he  appointed 
and  qualified  to  act  in  his  stead,  do  all  which  was  neces- 
sary to  the  due  establishment  and  the  subsequent  pros- 
perity of  his  kingdom  on  earth.  It  is  certain  that  he  and 
his  inspired  Apostles  knew  what  was  necessary.     And 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  37 

consideHng  what  their  relation  to  the  church  was,  and 
what  was  the  work  they  undertook,  and  how  deep  an 
interest  they  felt  in  it,  and  how  great  their  zeal  and  how 
constant  their  efforts  for  its  full  accomplishment ;  we 
must  regard  the  fact,  that  there  is  nothing  in  their  re- 
corded instructions  or  acts  which  gives  support  to  Pre- 
lacy, as  a  clear  indication  that  they  did  not  look  upon 
Prelacy  as  properly  belonging  to  the  Christian  establish- 
ment. Jesus  Christ  did  not  speak,  and  his  Apostles  did 
not  speak,  or  write,  or  act,  as  Episcopalians  would  do  in 
a  similar  case.  And  hence  we  conclude  that  they  did 
not  think  wad  feel,  as  Episcopalians  do.  For  men,  cer- 
tainly honest  men,  are  very  apt  to  speak  and  act  accord- 
ing to  their  opinions  and  feelings.  So  that,  if  the  mat- 
ter ended  here,  and  nothing  more  appeared  than  this  ab- 
sence, this  acknowledged  absence  of  clear  and  explicit 
scripture  evidence  in  favor  of  Prelacy ;  I  should  feel 
myself  constrained  to  pause,  and  to  ask,  how  could  this 
be,  if  Christ  and  the  Apostles  meant  to  establish  Prelacy 
in  the  Church? 

I  would  here  recommend  to  you  a  recent  work  on  the 
Apostolic  Church,  hy  Albert  Barnes  ;  who  examines  the 
reasonings  of  Episcopalians  more  particularly  than  I  can 
do,  and  who  labors,  I  think  very  successfully,  to  show, 
that  the  Episcopal  plan  of  church  government  can  derive 
no  support  from  the  New  Testament. 

But  the  matter  does  not  rest  here.  For  the  New  Tes- 
tament not  only  furnishes  no  evidence  in  favor  of  Prela- 
cy, but  much  evidence  against  it.  This  is  my  second 
objection  to  Prelacy.  The  first  objection  I  think  has 
weight ;  but  this  has  more  weight. 

Second  Objection.      There  is  in  the  instructions  of 


38  LECT  URE    II. 

Christ,  and  in  the  instructions  and  acts  of  his  Apostles, 
evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  against  the  Episcopal 
scheme,  both  as  to  church  discipline,  and  as  to  different 
orders  in  the  ministry. 

I  begin  with  saying,  that  the  New  Testament  fur- 
nishes evidence  against  the  Episcopal  scheme  in  re- 
gard to  the  treatment  of  personal  offences  and  other  diffi- 
culties in  the  church.  On  this  subject  Jesus  Christ  gave 
a  particular  direction  to  his  disciples ;  Matt.  18 :  15 — 17, 
"  If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him 
his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone.  If  he  shall  hear 
thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will  not 
hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in 
the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may  be 
established.  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell 
it  to  the  church.  But  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church, 
let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 
This  is  a  general  direction  from  Christ  himself  for  the 
treatment  of  offences.  And  why  is  it  not  binding  upon 
his  disciples  in  all  ages?  It  manifestly  had  respect  to 
future  time;  for  there  was  not  as  yet  any  regularly  or- 
ganized Christian  church,  that  could  act,  as  here  requi- 
red, in  the  business  of  discipline.  The  direction  of 
Christ  requires,  that  the  church,  that  is,  the  assembly  of 
believers,  should  ultimately  hear,  and  judge,  and  act  in 
regard  to  offences  committed  by  its  members.  This 
mode  of  proceeding  is  palpably  at  variance  with  the  sys- 
tem of  Episcopacy,  which  places  the  government  of  the 
church,  in  this  as  well  as  in  other  respects,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Bishop.  The  parish  minister  may  have  a  subor- 
dinate agency  in  the  discipline  of  offenders.  But  ulti- 
mately the  whole  power  belongs  to  the  Bishop.     On  this 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  39 

plan,  the  proceeding  from  beginning  to  end  must  be  ex- 
ceedingly different  from  that  required  by  Christ.  And 
to  bring  his  direction  to  correspond  with  the  Episcopal 
plan,  you  must  make  it  stand  thus :  If  thy  brother  tres- 
pass against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault,  etc.  If  he 
neglect  to  hear  thee,  take  one  or  two  others. — And  if  he 
neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it, — not  to  the  church,  hut  to  the 
minister  of  the  Parish,  and,  at  last,  to  the  Bishop.  But 
the  minister  is  not  the  church,  and  the  Bishop  is  not  the 
church. 

See  now  what  was  the  judgment  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
who  had  so  important  an  agency  in  establishing  Chris- 
tian churches ;  and  what  direction  he  gave,  in  regard  to 
the  treatment  of  offences.  A  gross  crime  was  committed 
by  a  member  of  the  church  at  Corinth  ;  and  the  Apostle, 
in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  above  mentioned  pre- 
cept of  Christ,  directed  the  church,  the  whole  church  to 
come  together  and  act  in  excluding  the  offender.  Novr 
what  is  there  in  the  doings  of  any  Episcopal  church, 
which  agrees  with  this  Apostolic  direction?  In  what 
instance  is  the  complaint  against  an  offender  brought 
before  the  church  for  decision  ?  In  what  instance  are 
the  members  of  the  church  gathered  together  to  act  in 
cutting  off  a  man  from  their  fellowship  ]  How  is  it  that 
Episcopalians  so  easily  overlook  the  direction  of  an  Apos- 
tle, and  the  example  of  a  primitive  church  acting  accord- 
ing to  his  direction,  and  then  make  so  much  of  the  opin- 
ions and  conduct  of  erring  Christians  in  after  ages  ?  If 
there  were  in  the  New  Testament  any  precept  or  exam- 
ple as  directly  favourable  to  their  scheme  of  Church  dis- 
cipline, as  the  above  precept  and  example  are  to  ours ; 
they  would  be  quick  to  discover  it,  and  would  at  once 


40 


LE  CTURE    II  . 


fix  upon  it  as  an  unfailing  support  to  their  principles. 
Should  it  be  said  by  any  one,  that  the  Apostle  in  this 
case  plainly  asserted  and  exercised  his  authority  over 
the  Corinthian  Church,  and  was  thus  an  example  for 
Prelates;  my  reply  would  be; — let  Prelates  then  take 
care  to  copy  the  Apostle's  example,  and  exercise  author- 
ity just  as  he  did,  not  by  a  separate,  final  act  of  their 
own,  but  by  referring  the  business  to  the  churches,  and 
directing  the  members  to  come  together  to  deliberate 
and  act  in  excommunicating  offenders. 

The  proceedings  recorded  in  Acts  15th,  are  evidently 
contrary  to  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government. 
I  have  already  referred  to  these  proceedings  as  furnish- 
ing no  evidence  in  favor  of  Prelacy.  I  now  refer  to  them, 
as  furnishing  evidence  against  Prelacy.  For  there  was 
one  Apostle,  that  is  Paul,  at  Antioch,  and  there  were 
Apostles  at  Jerusalem.  And  we  may  be  quite  sure  that 
these  Apostles,  qualified  as  they  were  for  their  ofiice, 
adopted  a  plan  of  proceeding,  which  was  agreeable  to 
the  mind  of  Christ,  and  which  may  be  regarded  as  a 
pattern  for  ministers  and  churches  in  subsequent  ages. 
A  dispute  and  contention  arose  among  the  disciples  at 
Antioch  respecting  circumcision.  They  finally  sent 
Paul  and  Barnabas  and  certain  others  to  the  Apostles 
and  Elders  at  Jerusalem  to  attend  to  this  matter.  "  And 
when  they  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  received 
of  the  church,  and  of  the  Apostles  and  Elders."  After 
Paul  and  Barnabas  had  stated  the  case  to  ^^  all  the  mul- 
iitude'"  assembled  on  the  occasion,  that  is,  to  the  Apos- 
tles and  Elders  and  the  church,  and  after  Peter  and  James 
had  spoken  on  the  question  before  them,  their  delibera- 
tions were  brought  to  a  happy  close ;  and  it  pleased  the 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  41 

Apostles  and  Elders,  with  the  wlwle  church,  to  send  cho- 
sen men  of  their  own  company  to  Antioch  to  communi- 
cate the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  church  at 
Antioch,  that  result  being  contained  in  a  letter  with  this 
introduction:  "The  Apostles  and  Elders  dinA  brethren 
send  greeting  to  the  brethren  at  Antioch,  etc." 

In  this  remarkable  case,  we  see  how  the  concerns  of 
the  church  were  managed  and  how  disputes  and  diffi- 
culties were  adjusted  in  the  Apostle's  days.  The  Apos- 
tles, though  divinely  commissioned  and  divinely  inspired, 
did  not  decide  the  question  before  them  by  their  own 
authority,  but  chose  to  act  in  connection  with  the  Elders, 
or  Presbyters,  and  "  the  ichole  Church^  And  in  the 
final  result,  the  Elders  and  the  whole  church  had  a  joint 
agency  with  the  Apostles. 

Here  the  question  instantly  arises ;  what  is  there  in 
any  doings  of  the  Episcopal  church,  which  agrees  at  all 
with  these  transactions  1  Where  do  you  find  it  recorded, 
that  in  removing  difficulties  and  settling  great  ecclesias- 
tical principles,  the  brethren  of  the  Episcopal  church  in 
any  place,  even  in  this  Republic,  came  together  and  join- 
ed with  the  Bishops  and  Presbyters  in  deliberating //-ee/y, 
ivithout  being  controlled  by  the  ivill  of  any  one,  on  a 
question  respecthig  the  interests  of  religion,  and  in  adopt- 
ing the  final  decision  1  Place  a  Bishop,  if  you  will,  on 
a  level  with  the  Apostles;  but  why  place  him  above 
them  ?  Why  should  he,  in  such  transactions,  set  aside 
the  brethren  of  the  church,  and  the  Elders  too,  and  as- 
sert his  supremacy  over  them,  and  act  the  part  of  Dicta- 
tor, when  the  Apostles  themselves,  though  invested  with 
such  high  authority,  did  not  proceed  thus,  but  acted  in 
concert  with  the  Elders  and  the  whole  church  ?     Say,  if 


42  LECTUREII. 

you  will,  that  the  Apostles,  though  they  had  a  rigid  to 
decide  and  act  on  the  ground  of  their  own  plenary  au- 
thority, intended  by  such  a  proceeding,  to  set  an  example 
of  singular  condescension  and  modesty.  Why  then 
do  not  Bishops,  who  consider  themselves  successors  of 
the  Apostles,  copy  so  charming  an  example  ?  The  plain 
truth  is,  that  there  is  a  radical  fault  in  the  system  of  Pre- 
lacy. That  system  does  not  agree  with  the  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament.  When  it  was  introduced,  it  was, 
as  we  shall  see,  an  innovation  upon  the  ecclesiastical 
order  established  and  acted  upon  by  the  Apostles.  It 
was  an  innovation  made  by  uninspired  men, — good  men, 
I  admit,  but  as  liable  to  error,  as  good  men  are  now. 
The  system  held  by  Episcopalians,  either  as  to  the  three 
orders  of  ministers,  or  the  mode  of  conducting  the  affairs 
of  the  church,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  pattern 
showed  us  in  the  New  Testament.  So  I  think.  It  is 
not, — as  Episcopalians  have  often  acknowledged. — de- 
rived from  the  word  of  God.  In  the  respects  above  men- 
tioned, it  is  a  continuation,  for  substance,  of  the  system 
which  existed  so  long  in  the  Papal  church,  and  the  sys- 
tem of  the  Papal  church  grew  out  of  the  innovations  and 
corruptions  which  were  gradually  introduced  by  the 
Christian  fathers  in  ages  long  after  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles. Henry  the  Eighth  did  indeed,  from  personal  con- 
siderations, renounce  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  of 
Rome.  But  so  far  as  the  church  of  England  was  con- 
cerned, he  took  the  place  of  the  Pope,  that  is,  he  be- 
came the  Head  of  the  church.  And  he  with  his  Bish- 
ops retained  for  their  church,  as  any  one  may  see,  the 
essential  features  of  the  previous  hierarchy,  both  as  to 
ceremonies,  and  the  orders  of  the  Priesthood. 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  43 

We  have  now  touched  upon  the  prominent  passages 
in  the  New  Testament,  which  relate  directly  to  the  man- 
ner of  treating  offences  and  removing  disputes  and  dis- 
sensions occurring  in  the  church.  And  I  know  not  how 
to  suppress  the  thoughts,  which  a  review  of  these  pas- 
sages suggests  to  my  mind.  And  if  I  repeat  what  I  have 
hinted  at  before,  the  repetition  is  intended  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deepening  the  impression. 

Suppose,  then,  that  the  advocates  of  the  Episcopal 
scheme  of  Ecclesiastical  government  at  this  day,  could 
find  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  or  John,  that 
Jesus,  who  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  things  to  come, 
directed  his  followers,  in  case  of  an  offence,  to  deal  once 
and  again  with  the  offender  in  private,  and  if  no  satis- 
faction should  be  given  for  the  offence,  to  tell  it  to  the 
Bishop, — not  to  the  church,  but  to  the  Bishop;  would 
they  pass  over  such  a  passage,  as  they  do  Matt.  18:  15 — 
17  ?  And  suppose  that,  in  conformity  with  such  a  direc- 
tion from  Christ,  they  should  find  in  one  of  Paul's  Epis- 
tles, that  he  gave  an  express  command  to  a  Bishop, — not 
to  the  members  of  the  church  assembled  together,  but  to 
the  Bishop,  "  with  the  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  to  cut 
off  an  offender ;  would  they  pass  over  such  a  direction, 
as  they  do  the  direction  of  Paul  to  the  members  of  the 
church  at  Corinth  respecting  the  treatment  of  the  inces- 
tuous person  ?  And  if  they  could  find  it  related  in  the 
history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  an  important 
and  difficult  question  respecting  the  interests  of  the 
church  was  determined  and  settled,  not  by  Apostles  and 
Elders  and  all  the  church  acting  together, — but  by  a 
Bishop,  or  several  Bishops  united, — could  Episcopalians 


44 


LECTURE    I 


find  any  thing  like  this ;  would  they  pass  over  it,  as  they 
do  the  case  mentioned  in  Acts  loth  ? 

It  was  suggested  in  the  previous  Lecture,  that  any 
direction  of  Christ  or  any  direction  or  act  of  his  Apos- 
tles respecting  the  transaction  of  business  in  the  church, 
is  binding  upon  us,  unless  it  appears,  that  such  direction 
or  act  was  grounded  upon  peculiar  circumstances  then 
existing,  and  that  circumstances,  so  essentially  different, 
now  exist,  that  we  are  evidently  at  liberty,  and  even  re- 
quired, to  govern  ourselves  by  other  considerations. 
Let  us  inquire  then,  whether  there  is  anything  like  this 
in  the  case  now  before  us.  Have  circumstances  so 
changed  since  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, that  we  are  required,  or  left  at  liberty,  to  de- 
viate from  a  direction  of  Christ,  or  a  direction  or  exam- 
ple of  an  Apostle  respecting  the  treatment  of  offences, 
or  the  conduct  of  other  church  affairs?  Have  we  any 
sufficient  reason  for  such  deviations  ? 

Now  if  there  is  in  New  England  and  in  other  parts  of 
our  country,  a  substantial  reason  at  the  present  time, 
why  the  members  of  the  church  should  be  excluded  from 
any  agency  in  matters  of  discipline,  and  why  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  should  be  ultimately  in  the  hands  of 
the  Bishop,  the  reason  must,  I  think,  consist  in  one  or 
more  of  the  following  facts ;  namely ;  that  the  interests 
of  the  church  are  essentially  different  from  what  they 
originally  were,  and  consequently  require  a  different 
management;  or,  secondly,  that  the  members  of  the 
church  are  less  competent  than  they  originally  were,  to 
have  an  agency  in  the  concerns  of  the  church ;  or,  third- 
ly, that  the  Bishop  is  possessed  of  higher  qualifications, 
and  is  of  course,  more  competent  to  the  government  of 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  45 

the  church,  than  he  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  Chris- 
tion  dispensation ;  or,  fourthly,  that  the  state  of  civil 
society  is  here  so  different,  as  to  require  a  change  from 
the  popular  forms  of  church  government  to  Prelacy. — Let 
us  consider  each  of  these. 

First.  Are  the  essential,  internal  interests  of  the 
church  different  from  what  they  were  when  Christianity 
was  first  established  in  the  world  ?  If  any  one  affirms 
that  this  is  the  case,  it  will  be  incumbent  on  him  to  show 
in  what  respect  those  interests  are  different,  and  why 
they  require  a  different  management.  Till  this  is  done, 
we  cannot  admit  that  the  change  referred  to  in  the  plan 
of  church  government,  is  either  necessary,  or  lawful. 

Secondly.  Is  there  reason  to  think,  that  the  members 
of  our  churches  generally  are  less  competent  to  have  a 
share  in  ecclesiastical  government,  than  the  members  of 
the  first  churches  at  Jerusalem  and  at  Corinth  were? 
Are  not  Christians  here  as  well  educated,  as  much  ac- 
customed to  think  correctly,  and  as  well  prepared  for 
important  duties,  as  those  were,  who  had  just  emerged 
from  .Judaism  or  Paganism,  and  who,  even  while  they 
enjoyed  the  benefits  of  Apostolic  instruction,  so  often 
showed  their  ignorance,  and  their  proneness  to  error  ? 

Thirdly.  Will  any  one  maintain,  that  a  Bishop  at  this 
day  is  possessed  of  higher  qualifications,  and  is  more 
competent  to  the  government  of  the  church,  than  a  Bish- 
op was  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  at  Corinth,  or  at  An- 
tioch  1  for  assuredly,  as  they  had  churches  there,  they 
must  have  had  Bishops.  Is  a  Bishop  at  the  present  time, 
I  ask,  more  competent  to  the  sole  exercise  of  church 
government,  than  a  Bishop  was  then ;  and  is  he  more 
competent,  than  an  inspired  ^pos^/e  was  ?  for  you  will 


46  LECTUREI. 

keep  in  mind,  that  there  were  Apostles  there,  but  that  no 
Apostle  undertook  to  decide  upon  the  questions  which 
came  up  at  Jerusalem,  except  in  concert  with  the  Pres- 
byters and  the  brethren  of  the  church.  And  as  to  the 
case  of  discipline  at  Corinth,  Paul  did  not  go  there  to 
manage  it ;  nor  did  he  direct  the  Bishop  to  manage  it; 
— (and  doubtless  the  Corinthian  church  had  a  Bishop;) 
but  he  directed  the  assembled  church  to  do  it.  The  ques- 
tion is,  whether  a  Bishop  now  is  better  qualified  to  go- 
vern, than  a  primitive  Bishop,  or  an  inspired  Apostle 


was 


Finally.  Is  the  state  of  civil  society  in  our  country 
such,  as  to  require  a  change  from  a  popular  form  of 
church  government  to  Prelacy?  The  question  carries 
its  own  answer  with  it.  If  ecclesiastical  government  is 
to  conform  to  civil  government ;  then,  as  civil  govern- 
ment, in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  was  in  the  hands  of  a 
Monarch,  ecclesiastical  government  should  certainly  have 
been  in  the  hands  of  a  Prelate.  And  as  we  live  under 
a  Republican  government,  (if  this  circumstance  is  to 
have  influence,)  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  if  Prelacy 
had  been,  (though  it  was  not) — yet  even  if  it  had  been 
the  original  plan,  it  should  now  be  changed  to  a  popular 
shape,  to  conform  to  our  Republican  institutions.  But 
what  reason,  I  pray,  can  you  find  in  our  Repuhlican 
principles  for  a  change  from  the  original  popular  form 
of  church  government  to  an  ecclesiastical  monarchy,  or 
aristocracy  ? 

We  come  therefore  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  has 
been  no  such  change  of  circumstances,  as  to  justify  a 
deviation  from  the  plan  of  church  discipline,  which  was 
marked  out  by  the  instructions  of  Christ,  and  by  the  in- 


CHURCHGOVERNJIENT.  47 

structions  and  example  of  the  Apostles ;  and,  of  course, 
that  we  are  as  much  bound  to  conform  to  that  plan,  as 
primitive  Christians  were.  My  objection  then  against 
Prelacy  remains ;  that,  in  respect  to  church  discipline, 
the  New  Testament  not  only  fails  of  giving  it  any  sup- 
port, but  furnishes  clear  evidence  against  it. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  other  branch  of  my  second  ob- 
jection, namely,  that  the  New  Testament  contains  evi- 
dence, both  direct  and  indirect,  against  the  Episcopal 
scheme,  in  regard  to  different  orders  in  the  ministry/,  and 
the  authority  of  Bishops. 

Now  it  seems  to  me,  that  everything  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament relative  to  the  Christian  ministry,  is  different  from 
what  it  would  have  been,  if  Christ  and  his  Apostles  had 
intended  to  establish  different  orders,  and  to  give  one 
order  authority  over  the  others.  The  seventy  disciples 
that  Jesus  sent  forth  were  all  of  one  order.  So  also  were 
the  twelve  Apostles.  And  Jesus  took  special  pains  to 
guard  them  against  supposing,  that  one  of  them  was  to 
be  superior  in  rank  to  the  others.  "  Be  not  called  mas- 
ters," he  said ;  "  for  one  is  your  master,  even  Christ ; 
and  all  ye  are  brethren."  And  when  some  of  them,  un- 
der the  influence  of  a  fond  mother,  indulged  aspiring 
thoughts,  and  made  the  request,  that  they  might  be  dis- 
tinguished above  their  brethren ;  he  rebuked  them  and 
said  ;  "  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of." 
He  then  proceeded  to  inform  them,  that  it  should  not  be 
among  them  as  it  was  among  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
where  some  are  appointed  to  exercise  lordship  over  oth- 
ers ;  that  they  should  not  aim  at  power  and  authority, 
but  shouM  look  upon  each  other  as  brethren  and  equals. 
If  the  Saviour  and  Head  of  the  church  had  intended  to 


48  LECTUREII. 

establish  Prelacy,  we  should  think  that  would  have  been 
a  very  favorable  opportunity  for  him  to  allude  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  to  signify,  that  although  no  distinction  of  rank 
should  be  made  among  the  twelve  Apostles,  who  were  to 
be  his  first  ministers,  it  would  be  otherwise  in  subsequent 
times,  and  that  the  welfare  of  the  church  would  ultimate- 
ly require,  that  there  should  be  three  orders  of  ministers, 
the  second  being  superior  to  the  third,  and  the  first  hav- 
ing authority  over  both.  Whereas  all  that  he  said  on 
the  occasion,  was  decidedly  against  the  idea  of  any  such 
distinction. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
consider  the  passages,  which  most  directly  relate  to  the 
subject  before  us.  The  first  which  occurs  is  Acts  13  : 
1 — 3.  In  the  church  at  Antioch,  which  doubdess  com- 
prised several  congregations,  there  were  certain  prophets 
and  teachers,  as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon,  and  Lucius,  and 
Manaen,  and  Saul.  "  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord, 
and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost  said,  separate  me  Barnabas 
and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them. 
And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their 
hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away."  The  proceeding 
does  not  correspond  at  all  with  the  Episcopal  scheme. 
There  was  no  one  among  them,  so  far  as  we  can  judge, 
who  was  superior  in  office  to  the  others,  and  to  whom 
the  business  was  committed  of  separating  Barnabas  and 
Saul  by  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  then 
sending  them  forth  to  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel 
among  the  heathen.  No  one  of  the  twelve  Apostles  was 
there.  Saul  was  indeed  called  to  be  an  Apostle  in  the 
highest  sense.  But  it  was  he  and  Barnabas,  that  were 
to  be  set  apart  for  the  special  work  whereunto  they  were 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  49 

called.  But  was  there  any  superior  church  officer,  any 
Prelate  i^QY^I  Or  did  the  Holy  Ghost  direct  them  to 
send  for  an  Apostle,  or  for  one  whom  the  Apostles  had 
ordained  as  a  Prelate,  to  come  and  set  apart  Barnabas 
and  Saul?  Now  I  do  not  say  that  this  was  an  ordina- 
tion in  the  sense  in  which  we  commonly  use  the  word. 
But  I  ask,  whether  any  transaction  like  this  takes  place, 
or  can  take  place,  among  modern  Episcopalians ;  wheth- 
er it  would  be  consistent  with  their  principles,  that  two 
of  their  young  men  should  be  solemnly  set  apart  for  the 
work  of  the  gospel  ministry  among  the  heathen,  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  those  who  are  not  Bishops. 
And  I  ask,  whether  the  Episcopal  scheme  and  the  Epis- 
copal practice  are  not,  in  this  matter,  at  variance  with 
the  proceedings  of  the  first  Christian  churches. 

It  cannot  be  alleged,  that  these  proceedings  took  place 
before  there  had  been  time  to  organize  the  churches, 
and  to  develope  the  real  and  ultimate  design  of  Christ  in 
regard  to  the  ministerial  office.  For  the  Apostles  had 
been  preaching  about  twelve  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ,  had  established  many  churches,  and  had  unques- 
tionably given  the  necessary  instruction  relative  to  the 
permanent  institutions  of  Christianity.  The  affairs  of 
the  church  had,  for  many  years,  been  receiving  a  proper 
direction  and  form  under  the  special  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And  from  the  proceedings  at  Antioch  in 
setting  apart  men  to  the  gospel  ministry  among  the  hea- 
then, we  learn  what  that  form  was. 

The  next  passage  to  which  I  refer,  as  containing  evi- 
dence against  Prelacy,  is  Acts  xx.  Paul  gathered  the 
Elders  or  Presbyters  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  said 
to  them  :  "  Take  heed  to  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 


50  L  E  C  T  U  R  E    1 1 . 

Ghost  hath  made  you  eTnaxoTiovg,  Bishops."  The  Pres- 
biters  were  Bishops.  This  is  clear.  The  two  words 
were  used  interchangeably.  They  were  applied  to  the 
same  men,  and  denoted  the  same  office.  Now  Paul  had 
been  at  Ephesus  no  less  than  three  years,  and  had  done 
what  he  deemed  necessary  for  the  establishment  of  gos- 
pel order.  The  church  at  Ephesus  was  a  large  church, 
consisting  doubtless  of  several  congregations,  and  having 
several  Bishops,  or  Presbyters,  one  at  least,  we  may  sup- 
pose, to  each  congregation ;  all,  however,  forming  one 
church.  Now,  why  had  not  Paul,  during  his  long  stay 
there,  and  in  the  first  organization  of  the  church,  in 
which  it  was  so  important  that  everything  should  be  done 
right, — why  had  he  not  appointed  a  Prelate  for  Ephesus, 
that  is,  a  Bishop  who  should  have  authority  over  the  other 
Bishops,  or  Presbyters,  and  a  general  supervision  over  the 
whole  church?  This  certainly  would  have  been  done  by 
any  one  who  entertained  the  views  of  our  Prelates.  Why 
had  not  Paul  done  it  ?  Or  if  he  had  done  it,  why  does 
it  not  appear  1  Why  is  it  not  said,  he  sent  and  called 
the  Bishop  and  the  Presbyters  1  And  why  is  it  not  said 
that  he  addressed  himself  to  them  distinctly,  as  any  Bish- 
op would  now  do,  charging  the  Prelate  to  maintain  a 
faithful  care  and  government  over  the  other  orders  of 
ministers,  and  charging  the  Presbyters  to  be  faithful  in 
their  respective  congregations,  to  love  as  brethren,  and 
to  show  due  honor  and  submission  to  their  Bishop  %  If 
Paul  had  agreed  with  Episcopalians  in  principle,  would 
he  not  have  agreed  with  them  in  practice  1  And  if  Epis- 
copalians differ  from  the  Apostle  in  practice,  is  it  not 
quite  probable  that  they  differ  from  him  in  principle  too? 
I  argue  against  the  doctrine  of  Prelacy  from  Paul's 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  51 

Epistle  to  Titus,  Chap.  1 :  5,  7.  He  directed  Titus  to 
ordain  Presbyters  in  every  city,  and  specified  tlie  quali- 
fications they  should  possess  ;  and  then  suggests  to  Titus 
the  reason  for  such  care  as  to  the  character  of  a  Presby- 
ter. "  For  a  Bishop  must  be  blameless,  etc."  The 
whole  passage  makes  it  certain  that  the  Apostle  meant 
the  same  officer  by  Presbyter  and  by  Bishop.  Titus 
himself  was  a  Bishop, — ^just  such  a  Bishop  as  he  was  to 
ordain  in  every  city.     A  Presbyter  was  a  Bishop. 

The  address  of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  im- 
plies something,  which  seems  to  me  unfavorable  to  Pre- 
lacy. "  To  all  the  saints  at  Philippi,  with  the  Bishops 
and  Deacons."  The  Bishops  were  just  such  church  of- 
ficers, as  those  at  Ephesus,  who  were  first  called  Presby- 
ters, and  then  Bishops.  You  observe,  they  were  Bish- 
ops,— not  a  Bishop,  but  Bishops, — and  Bishops  of  the 
same  church,  or  collection  of  churches,  or,  if  you  please, 
Bishops  of  the  same  diocese.  It  would  suit  the  views 
of  Episcopalians  far  better,  had  the  Apostle  directed  his 
Epistle  thus :  "  To  all  the  saints  at  Philippi,  with  the 
Bishop,  Presbyters  and  Deacons." 

As  to  Deacons  ;  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  find  what  in- 
formation the  New  Testament  gives.  They  were  ser- 
vants, or  ministers,  as  the  word  signifies.  It  is  applied 
to  Phebe,  Rom.  16 :  1,  who  in  a  more  private  way  minis- 
tered to  the  saints,  particularly,  as  we  suppose,  to  poor  and 
sick  females.  It  is  often  applied  to  the  Apostles.  See 
1  Cor.  3 : 5.  2  Cor.  3:6.  6:4.  11  :  23.  It  is  applied  to 
Timothy,  1  Thess.  3  : 2  ;  to  Tychicus,  Ephes.  6 :  21,  and 
Coloss.  1  :  7,  and  to  Epaphras,  Coloss.  1  :  7.  Thus  it  ap- 
pears, that  the  Apostles  and  other  ministers  were  familiar- 
ly called  Jiamvoi,  Deacons,  i.  e.  servants,  servants  of  God, 


52  LECTUREII. 

or  of  Christ.  This  is  the  general  use  of  the  word  in  the 
New  Testament.  And  why  may  we  not  suppose  it  to  be 
used  in  this  general  sense  in  Philip.  1:1.  "  To  the  saints 
at  Philippi,  with  the  Bishops  and  Deacons," — or,  in  plain 
English,  the  overseers  and  servants  ;  i.  e.  to  those  who  are 
both  overseers  and  servants  of  the  church.  I  acknowledge 
it  may  be  used  here  as  in  1  Tim.  iii,  where  Bishops  and 
Deacons  are  mentioned  and  described  distinctly,  imply- 
ing that  they  were  employed,  as  servants  of  Christ,  in 
different  departments  of  labor.  But  if  this  is  the  true 
construction,  still  what  evidence  is  there,  that  the  Dea- 
cons, as  an  inferior  order  of  ministers,  were  subject  to 
the  Bishops?  What  evidence  is  there,  that  the  Bishops 
had  authority  over  them,  any  more  than  over  one  ano- 
ther 1  Certainly  this  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  name. 
They  were  indeed  called  deacons,  or  servants ;  and  so 
were  Timothy  and  Tychicus  and  Epaphras;  and  so 
were  the  Apostles.  And  while  the  Deacons  described 
by  Paul,  1  Tim.  iii,  were  truly  servants  ;  they  were,  like 
the  others  just  mentioned,  servants  of  God  and  of  Christ, 
but  are  never  said  to  be  in  subjection  to  a  Bishop.  But 
the  probability  is,  that  they  were  servants  of  the  church 
in  a  more  limited  sense. 

I  cite  also  1  Tim.  4 :  14.  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that 
is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.''  According 
to  the  best  Philologists  and  critics,  Presbytery  denotes 
an  assembly  of  Presbyters.  These  laid  their  hands  on 
Timothy,  and  thus  inducted  him  into  his  office.  Pres- 
byterians and  Congregationalists  naturally  adopt  this  lan- 
guage in  giving  an  account  of  their  ordinations.  The 
passage  is  plainly  in  favor  of  ordination  by  a  council  of 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  53 

Presbyters.  But  it  is  plainly  against  the  High  Church 
notion  of  ordination  by  a  Prelate.  And  Episcopalians 
do  not  naturally  describe  their  ordinations  in  this  way. 
They  refer  you  at  once  to  2  Tim.  1 :  6,  where  the  Apos- 
tle speaks  of  the  gift  which  was  in  Timothy  by  the  lay- 
ing on  of  Ms  hands.  This  passage  unquestionably  im- 
plies, that  Paul  joined  with  the  Presbyters  in  ordaining 
Timothy  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  But  there  is  not 
the  least  evidence  from  the  two  passages  taken  together, 
or  from  anything  else,  that  the  Presbyters  had  not  as 
good  a  right  to  ordain  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  or  as 
real  a  concern  and  influence  in  conferring  the  gift  spo- 
ken of,  as  the  Apostle  had.  The  gift  came  indeed,  from 
above ;  and  it  was  ascribed  to  human  agency  in  only  a 
secondary  and  very  inferior  sense.  But  it  was  ascribed 
to  the  Presbytery,  as  much  as  to  Paul.  And  it  was  thus 
ascribed  to  the  Presbytery  by  Paul  himself,  who  certain- 
ly understood  the  matter.  Episcopalians  well  know  how 
remarkable  the  efforts  of  some  of  their  writers  have  been, 
to  make  the  account  which  Paul  gives  of  this  ordina- 
tion, 1  Tim.  4  :  14,  correspond  with  their  scheme. 

I  shall  refer  to  only  one  passage  more  ;  1  Pet.  4  : 1 — 3. 
Peter  evidently  agrees  with  Paul  in  regard  to  the  subject 
under  consideration.  He  here  addresses  Elders,  or  Pres- 
byters, calling  himself  an  Elder,  and  then  exhorts  them 
to  do  the  work  of  Bishops,  tTnaxoTZovvteg  ;  clearly  iden- 
tifying the  office  of  Bishop  and  Elder.  A  Bishop,  ac- 
cording to  the  New  Testament  use,  was  a  minister  and 
overseer  of  a  church,  not  an  overseer  of  Presbyters. 
Presbyters  were  Bishops,  and  Bishops  were  Presbyters. 
The  language  of  the  Apostles  makes  it  exceedingly  evi- 
dent, that  they  considered  all  ministers  on    a   footing 


54  LECTUREII. 

of  equality.  They  mention  no  such  officer,  as  a  Prelate, 
that  is,  a  Bishop  who  had  authority  over  a  number  of 
churches,  and  over  other  Bishops. 

This  is  acknowledged  by  many  Episcopalians.  Bish- 
op Burnet  says :  ''  I  acknowledge  the  office  of  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  to  be  one  and  the  same  office."  Dr.  Rey- 
nolds, former  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Oxford,  says,  that 
all  who  labored  for  hundreds  of  years  before  him  taught, 
that  all  Pastors,  whether  entitled  Bishops  or  Presbyters, 
have  equal  power  and  authority  hy  GocPs  ivorcl  And 
he  declares  this  to  be  the  common  judgment  of  the  Re- 
formed churches  in  Switzerland,  Savoy,  France,  Ger- 
many, Hungary,  Poland,  the  Netherlands,  Scotland  and 
England.  And  in  a  work  called  "  The  Institution  of  the 
Christian  man,"  expressly  approved  by  Cranmer,  Jewell, 
Willet,  and  Still ingfleet,  together  with  the  King  and  Par- 
liament, and  the  main  body  of  the  English  clergy,  is  this 
declaration  :  "  In  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  any  other  degrees,  but  o^  Deacons  or  ministers, 
and  o^ Presbyters  or  Bishops."  Burnet  says:  "The 
King  gave  Bishops  their  power  to  ordain  ministers,  to 
exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  to  perform  all 
other  parts  of  the  Episcopal  function."  Dr.  Holland, 
King's  Professor  at  Oxford,  says  :  "  To  affirm  the  office 
of  Bishop  to  be  different  from  that  of  Presbyter,  and  su- 
perior to  it,  is  most  false, — contrary  to  Scripture,  to  the 
Fathers,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England,  yea, 
to  the  very  schoolmen  themselves."  Paley  says  :  "  It 
cannot  be  proved  that  any  form  of  church  government 
was  laid  down  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  with  a  view 
of  fixing  a  constitution  for  succeeding  ages."  And  the 
Editors  of  the  Christian  Observer,  1804,  say  :  "  Episco- 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  55 

palians  found  not  the  merits  of  their  cause  upon  any  ex- 
press injunction  or  delineation  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment in  the  Scriptures  ;  for  there  is  none."  I  shall  add 
a  recent  testimony,  which  is  of  special  interest.  Bishop 
Onderdonk  says,  that  "  in  the  New  Testament,  the  name. 
Bishop^  is  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  Presbyters ;  and 
that  all  which  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning 
Bishops, — is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  that  middle 
graded  "  It  was^''  he  says,  "  after  the  Apostolic  agCj 
that  the  name  Bishop  was  taken  from  the  second  order y 
and  appropriated  to  the  firsts 


LECTURE   III. 


We  have  now  seen  how  the  matter  lies.  The  New 
Testament,  instead  of  supporting  the  Episcopal  scheme, 
furnishes  much  evidence  against  it.  And  the  main  point 
which  I  wish  to  support,  namely,  that  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were  the  same  officers, 
and  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  establish  three 
orders  of  ministers,  one  of  which  is  to  have  authority 
over  the  others,  is  acknowledged  by  a  multitude  of  Epis- 
copalians. 

According  to  the  grand  principle  of  Protestantism, 
our  inquiries  might  end  here.  For  who  can  doubt  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be  our  guide  on  this  subject, 
as  well  as  on  any  other  1  If  the  authorized  founders  and 
guides  of  the  church  saw  proper,  at  the  outset,  to  estab- 
lish any  general  principles  of  church  government,  why 
should  not  those  principles  govern  us  ?  Now,  if  I  mis- 
take not,  it  has  been  made  evident  to  you,  that  Presby- 
ters and  Bishops  were  originally  officers  of  the  same  or- 
der ;  and  that  the  Apostles  established  the  principle,  that 
there  should  be  an  equality  among  gospel  ministers  in 
regard  to  rank ;  and  that  the  members  of  the  church 
should  act  in  matters  of  discipline.  The  Apostles  es- 
tablished this  important  principle,  well  knowing  that 
they  were  authorized  and  required  to  determine  the  or- 
der of  things  in  the  christian  ministry  and  church,  and 


58  LECTUREIII. 

that  they  would  be  looked  to  as  guides  and  examples  in 
after  ages.  We  ought,  therefore,  to  regard  and  main- 
tain this,  as  a  settled  principle  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
unless  there  are  circumstances  which  make  it  known  to 
be  his  will,  that  there  should  be  a  variation. 

The  great  reason  which  is  urged  by  Episcopalians  to 
justify  them  in  departing  from  the  Scripture  standard 
and  in  establishing  Prelacy,  is,  that  Prelacy  was  intro- 
duced at  an  early  period  in  the  Christian  church.  The 
practice  of  the  Fathers  is  the  argument  most  relied  upon. 

I  encounter  this  argument  at  once  with  several  inqui- 
ries. 

First,  I  ask  whether  the  early  Fathers  were,  like  the 
Apostles,  guided  by  divine  inspiration,  and  were  thus 
qualified  and  authorized,  as  infallible  guides,  to  make 
alterations  in  the  order  which  the  Apostles  had  estab- 
lished ?  If  they  were,  then  we  ought  to  submit  to  their 
decision  as  readily,  as  to  the  decision  of  the  Apostles. 
But  this  no  one  maintains.     I  come  then  to  my 

Second  inquiry.  Were  the  early  Christian  Fathers 
instructed  hy  the  Apostles  to  make  the  alteration  intend- 
ed, and,  at  the  proper  time,  to  introduce  Prelacy?  If 
there  is  any  evidence  of  this,  it  must  be  found  either  in 
the  instructions  of  the  Apostles  recorded  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  in  the  testimony  of  the  early  Fathers,  that  they 
received  oral  instructions  from  the  Apostles  in  favor  of 
such  a  change,  though  the  instructions  were  not  record- 
ed. 

Let  us  look  at  the  first  of  these  suppositions.  In  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  the  Epistles,  we  have  many 
and  very  particular  instructions  in  regard  both  to  the 
ministry  and  the  church, — instructions  which  related  not 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  59 

only  to  their  own  times,  but  to  times  following.  The 
Apostles  had  a  clear  prophetic  view  of  the  state  of  the 
church  and  of  the  world  in  subsequent  ages,  and  fore- 
told many  things  that  would  come  to  pass  after  their  de- 
cease. But  does  it  appear  that  they  gave  any  instruc- 
tions relative  to  the  subject  now  under  consideration? 
Does  it  appear  that  they  expressly  said,  or  in  any  way 
intimated,  that  although,  for  the  time  being,  they  estab- 
lished only  one  order  of  ministers,  called  Presbyters  or 
Bishops,  they  would  have  three  orders  established  by 
their  successors  in  following  ages  ?  They  directed  that 
Presbyters  should  be  ordained  in  every  city.  But  did 
they  signify  that,  after  a  while,  circumstances  would  re- 
quire, that  a  Prelate  should  be  ordained  over  Presbyters'? 
Or  if  they  did  not  give  a  positive  direction  that  this 
should  be  done ;  did  they  give  discretionary  power  to 
their  successors  to  do  it,  if  they  should  judge  expedient? 
The  subject  being  of  so  great  importance,  it  is  certainly 
reasonable  to  think  that  something,  like  what  I  have 
suggested,  would  have  been  found  in  some  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  if  the  mind  of  the  Apostles  had  been 
in  favor  of  the  change  alluded  to.  But  where  do  you 
find  it  ? 

Look  then  at  the  other  supposition.  Do  the  early  Fa- 
thers testify,  that  the  Apostles  gave  oral  instructions, 
which  are  not  recorded,  that  there  should  be  three  or- 
ders in  the  ministry  ?  Do  they  in  any  way  inform  us, 
that  there  was  an  unwritten  tradition  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles,  in  favor  of  Prelacy  ?  In  the  writings  of 
the  Christian  Fathers  there  is,  in  my  judgment,  no  evi- 
dence of  this,  but  much  of  a  contrary  character.  I  can- 
not go  into  an  examination  of  this  subject  in  these  Lee- 


60  LECTUREIII. 

tures.  But  others  have  done  it.  And  if  you  will  care- 
fully attend  to  the  best  books  which  have  been  written 
on  both  sides  of  the  question,  I  am  confident  you  will  be 
satisfied  of  this. 

But  early  practice  is  appealed  to.  Prelacy^  it  is  said, 
generally  prevailed  very  early ;  and  it  can  hardly  he 
supposed  that  this  would  have  been  the  case,  without  some 
warrant  from  the  Apostles. 

In  regard  to  this  matter,  let  us  take  care  to  guard 
against  confusion.  It  is  evident,  that  Prelacy  did  at 
length  obtain  a  general  prevalence  in  the  church.  But 
it  is  specially  important  for  us  to  inquire,  when  it  thus 
prevailed.  There  is,  I  think,  clear  and  abundant  evi- 
dence, that  during  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  and  for  more, 
than  fifty  years  after  the  Apostles,  the  churches  were 
taught  and  governed  by  Presbyters  ;  that  those  who  were 
called  Bishops,  were  the  same  as  Presbyters,  and  were 
Pastors  and  overseers  of  particular  churches,  and  that 
there  was  no  such  officer  as  a  Prelate,  that  is,  a  minister 
of  superior  rank,  having  authority  over  inferior  orders  of 
ministers  ;  and  also  that  the  members  of  the  church  act- 
ed in  matters  of  discipline,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  in  Matt,  xviii.  But  instead  of  undertaking  to 
present  this  evidence  before  you  in  detail,  which  would 
lead  me  very  far  beyond  my  limits  in  these  Lectures,  I 
shall  in  the  sequel  state  the  positions  which  I  think  ten- 
able, and  refer  you  to  several  works  of  a  high  charac- 
ter, in  which  the  subject  is  handled  very  particularly  and 
fully. 

Pedobaptists  have  sometimes  been  charged  with  an 
inconsistency,  because  they  derive  an  argument  in  sup- 
port of  Infant  Baptism  from  Ecclesiastical  History,  and 


CHURC  H    GO  VERNMENT.  61 

yet  deny  the  force  of  the  same  argument  when  urged  in 
support  of  Prelacy. 

A  statement  of  the  case,  just  as  it  is,  will,  I  think  be 
sufficient  to  show,  that  the  charge  has  no  solid  founda- 
tion. 

The  chief  historical  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism does  not,  in  my  view,  arise  from  the  fact,  that  the 
practice  did  at  length  generally  prevail  in  the  early  ages  ; 
but  from  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  that  it  teas  re- 
ceived from  the  Apostles.  In  their  practice,  early  Chris- 
tians did,  in  many  things,  deviate  from  the  principles  es- 
tablished by  the  Apostles.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  the 
mere  prevalence  of  any  practice  in  the  fourth,  third,  or 
second  century,  cannot  be  considered  as  proving  its 
divine  origin,  or  our  obligation  to  adopt  it.  But  it  is 
admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  Christian  Fathers  were 
good  men,  and  that  their  testimony,  as  to  matters  of  fact 
within  their  knowledge,  can  he  relied  upon.  Now  it  was 
doubtless  known  among  them,  what  the  Apostolic  insti- 
tutions were ;  just  as  it  is  known  among  us,  what  were 
the  original  institutions  of  our  Puritan  forefathers  in 
New  England.  Those  who  lived  in  the  second,  third 
and  fourth  centuries  had  such  means  of  information,  that 
they  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  fallen  into  any  mistake. 
They  were  honest  men,  and  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
given  a  false  testimony.  And  their  testimony,  in  some 
instances  their  express  and  emphatic  testimony  is,  not 
only  that  Infant  Baptism  was  and  had  been  universally 
practised  among  Christians,  but  that  it  was  delivered  to 
the  churches  hy  the  Apostles.  It  is  chiefly  from  this 
testimony  as  to  the  origin  of  the  practice,  and  not  from 
the  mere  fact  of  its  prevalence,  that  I  would  arrrue  in 


62  -  LECTURE    III. 

support  of  Infant  Baptism.  Now  to  make  the  cases 
parallel,  you  must  have  the  testimony  of  Christian  Fa- 
thers not  only  that  Prelacy  generally  prevailed  at  such  a 
time,  but  that  it  was  handed  down,  as  a  divine  ordi- 
nance, from  the  Apostles.  You  must,  I  say,  have  their 
testimony,  that  Prelacy  had  uniformly  existed  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  was  received  from  the  inspired 
Apostles  as  a  pcrinanant  institution.  If  such  a  testi- 
mony could  be  produced,  who  would  not  acknowledge 
its  weight  1 

But  we  have  testimony  to  the  contrary;  that  is,  that 
Prelacy  was  not  received  from  the  Apostles.  And  to 
place  the  historical  argument  for  Infant  Baptism  on  the 
same  footing  with  this,  it  must  be  shown  that,  while  In- 
fant Baptism  was  universally  practised  in  the  days  of 
Origen,  Augustine,  Pelagius,  Tertullian,  etc.  the  Fathers, 
at  least  some  of  them,  declared,  that  it  was  not  the  prac- 
tice in  the  Christian  church  originally,  but  was,  for 
special  reasons,  introduced  afterwards.  If  any  evidence 
like  this  could  be  adduced,  we  should  be  obliged  to 
abandon  the  historical  argument  for  Infant  Baptism,  and 
to  acknowledge  that,  so  far  as  the  testimony  of  the  Fa- 
thers  goes,  the  Baptists  are  right. 

In  opposition  to  Prelacy,  we  have  just  such  testimony 
from  the  Fathers,  as  I  have  hinted  at.  Chrysostom  says : 
"  The  Presbyters  were  formerly  called  Bishops ;  and  the 
Bishops,  Presbyters."  Theodoret  says :  "  Those  who 
were  called  Bishops  evidently  held  the  rank  of  Presby- 
ters." Irenaeus  says  the  same  of  the  Bishops  who  pre- 
ceded Victor  in  the  church  at  Rome.  But  Jerome,  who 
lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  and  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century,  gives  the  most  particular  testimony. 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  63 

Jerome,  "  in  the  judgment  of  Erasmus,  was  without  con- 
troversy by  far  the  most  learned  and  most  eloquent  of 
all  the  Christians,  and  the  prince  of  Christian  Divines;" 
and  he  was  unquestionably  familiar  with  the  history 
of  the  Christian  church  from  the  beginning.  His  testi- 
mony is  found  in  his  Annotations  on  Paul's  Epistle  to 
Titus.  In  those  Annotations  he  gives  an  account  of  the 
nature  and  origin  of  the  office  of  a  Bishop.  And  he 
says  distinctly:  ''A  Presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  Bishop. 
And  until  there  arose  divisions  in  religion,  churches 
were  governed  by  a  common  council  of  Presbyters.  But 
aftcrioards,  it  was  everywhere  decreed,  that  one  person, 
elected  from  the  Presbyters,  should  be  placed  over  the 
others."  Referring  to  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians, 
which  was  addressed  to  the  saints  "  with  the  Bishops 
and  Deacons,"  he  observes;  "  Philippi  is  a  single  city 
of  Macedonia;  and  certainly  there  could  not  have  been 
several  like  those  who  are  now  called  Bishops,  at  one 
time  in  the  same  city.  But  as,  at  that  time,  they  called 
the  same  Bishops,  whom  they  styled  Presbyters  also,  the 
Apostles  spoke  indifferently  of  Bishops  as  of  Presbyters." 
Jerome  alludes  to  the  fact,  that  Paul,  having  sent  for  the 
Presbyters  of  the  single  city  of  Ephesus,  afterwards 
speaks  of  them  as  Bishops ;  and  he  refers  also  to  what 
Peter  says:   "The  Presbyters  who  are  among  you  I 

exhort,  who  am  also  a  Presbyter. Feed  the  flock  of 

God  —  taking  the  oversight,  sniay.OTiovvTF.g,  exercising 
the  office  of  a  Bishop,  etc.''  "  These  things,"  Jerome 
says,  "  we  have  brought  forward  to  show  that,  with  the 
ancients,  Presbyters  were  the  same  as  Bishops.  But  in 
order  that  the  roots  of  dissension  might  be  plucked  up,  a 
usage  gradually  took  place,  that  the  whole  care  should 


64  LECTURE  in. 

devolve  upon  one.  Therefore,  as  the  Presbyters  know, 
that  it  is  by  the  custom  of  the  church  that  they  are  sub- 
ject to  him  who  is  placed  over  them;  so  let  Bishops 
know,  that  they  are  above  Presbyters  rather  hi/  custom, 
than  by  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  appointment."  Jerome 
aims,  in  this  way,  to  inculcate  upon  Bishops  the  duty 
of  a  meek  and  humble  carriage.  All  this  is  in  accor- 
dance with  what  Tertullian  says  on  the  same  subject. 

Many  of  the  advocates  of  Prelacy  in  the  English 
church,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  admit  the  identity  of  ETiia- 
y.OTtog  and  TtQea^vreQog,  in  the  primitive  church,  and 
that  the  distinction,  which  prevailed  in  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  was  unknown  for  a  long  time  after  the 
Christian  church  was  founded  by  the  Apostles. 

You  see  how  the  matter  stands,  as  to  the  abovemen- 
tioned  charge  of  inconsistency.  In  regard  to  Infant 
Baptism,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  most  respecta- 
ble Fathers  that  the  institution  was  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles,  but  not  the  least  hint  from  any  one  of  them, 
that  it  was  not  so.  But  in  regard  to  Prelacy,  we  have 
no  testimony  from  the  Fathers,  that  it  was  appointed  by 
the  Apostles.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  their  testimony 
that  it  was  not  known  in  the  Apostolic  age,  or  near  it, 
but  was  introduced  afterwards. 

I  have  said,  that  the  mere  iwactice  of  the  ancient 
church  cannot  in  any  case  be  adduced,  as  conclusive 
evidence  of  a  divine  institution.  But  even  in  regard  to 
ancient  practice,  there  is  an  obvious  difference  between 
Infant  Baptism  and  Prelacy.  In  the  first  place;  there 
is  evidence  that  Infimt  Baptism  was  practised  univer- 
sally in  the  early  churches  ;  while  there  is  no  such  evi- 
dence, but  the  contrary,  in  regard  to  Prelacy.    Secondly  : 


CHURCH      GOVERNMENT.  65 

there  is  clear  evidence,  that  Prelacy  was  gradually  intro- 
duced long  after  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  with  a  view  to 
remedy  existing  evils.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  thus  gradually  introduced,  or  intro- 
duced at  all,  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  So  that  the 
argument,  which  is  grounded  upon  Ancient  practice 
merely,  though  by  no  means  conclusive,  is  yet  of  more 
weight  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  than  of  Prelacy. 

Here  I  am  inclined  to  make  a  supposition  similar  to 
what  I  before  made  in  regard  to  the  Scripture  argument, 
— a  supposition  that  the  facts  in  the  case  were  different 
from  what  they  are.  Suppose  then,  that  respectable 
writers  among  the  Christian  Fathers  had  given  a  testi- 
mony to  the  apostolic  origin  of  Prelacy,  like  that  which 
they  have  given  against  it.  Suppose  Chrysostom,  in- 
stead of  saying,  that  Presbyters  were  formerly  called 
Bishops,  and  Bishops  Presbyters,  had  just  said,  that 
Bishops  from  the  beginning  were  superior  to  Presbyters. 
And  suppose,  that  Theodoret,  instead  of  saying;  "  those 
who  were  called  Bishops,  evidently  held  the  rank  of 
Presbyters,"  had  said,  that  Bishops  evidently  held  a  rank 
above  Presbyters.  And  let  me  make  one  more  supposi- 
tion. Suppose  that  such  a  man  as  Jerome,  instead  of 
saying  what  I  have  quoted  from  his  Annotations,  had 
just  said,  that  a  Presbyter  was  not  the  same  as  a  Bishop, 
and  that,  from  the  beginning,  the  churches  were  govern- 
ed, not  by  Presbyters,  but  by  a  Bishop.  And  suppose 
he  had  said,  not  that  a  usage,  after  a  while,  gradually 
took  place,  but  that  it  was  a  usage  fro?n  the  first,  that 
the  whole  care  of  the  churches  devolved  upon  one,  and 
that  it  was  always  the  case,  that  one  was  chosen  from 
among  the  Presbyters  to  be  placed  over  the  others. 
5 


66  LECTURE    III. 

And,  instead  of  inculcating  humility  and  meeJcness  upon 
Bishops  from  the  consideration,  that  they  are  above 
Presbyters  rather  by  custom,  then  by  the  truth  of  the 
Lord's  appointment,  suppose  he  had  inculcated  s^uhmis- 
sion  upon  Presbyters,  from  the  consideration  that  Bish- 
ops were  placed  over  them  not  merely  by  common  cus- 
tom, but  by  the  Lord's  appointment ; — suppose  that  these 
and  other  ancient  Fathers  had  thus  given  the  very  same 
testimony  in  favor  of  the  Apostolic  origin  of  Prelacy,  as 
they  actually  gave  against  it;  would  not  the  advocates 
of  Prelacy  feel,  that  they  were  in  possession  of  a  new 
and  glorious  argument,  and  that  all  the  world  must  ac- 
knowledge their  cause  to  be  founded  upon  a  rock. 

But  I  meet  the  argument  from  early  practice  in  ano- 
ther way.  Suppose  then,  that  Prelacy  was  in  fact  intro- 
duced soon  after  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  and  was  ex- 
tended rapidly  through  the  Christian  world.  It  did  un- 
questionably exist  thus  extensively  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries.  Suppose,  if  you  will,  that  this  was  the  case 
in  the  age  immediately  following  that  of  the  Apostles. 
My  question  is,  how  far  and  on  what  grounds  the  prac- 
tice of  uninspired  men  can  bind  us  ?  Why  should  we 
feel  ourselves  obliged  to  adhere  to  a  principle  of  order, 
which  they  set  on  foot  ?  However  near  to  the  Apostles 
they  may  have  lived,  what  claim  have  they  to  dictate  to 
us,  above  what  uninspired  men  have  in  modern  times  1 
The  Apostles  mourned. over  the  ignorance,  the  supersti- 
tion, the  party  spirit  and  strife,  and  various  other  corrup- 
tions, that  appeared  in  the  churches  which  they  had 
planted,  and  even  among  the  religious  teachers  who  lived 
in  their  day;  and  they  bore  a  solemn  testimony  against 
evils  so  prevalent,  and  so  dishonorable  to  the  character 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  67 

of  Christians.  And  can  you  think  it  is  the  will  of  God, 
that  we  should  regard  those  as  safe  guides,  who  were  so 
prone  to  corrupt  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  to  run 
into  all  sorts  of  disorder,  as  many  of  the  churches  of  Asia 
did,  even  in  the  Apostolic  age,  and  who  thus  incurred 
the  most  painful  tokens  of  the  divine  displeasure  ?  There 
were  indeed  faithful  ministers  and  Christians.  And  such 
have  been  found  in  later  times ;  and  such  are  found  at 
the  present  day.  But  does  the  piety  and  fidelity  of  min- 
isters and  Christians  render  them  infallible,  and  author- 
ize them  to  unsettle  what  the  Apostles  settled  ?  Does 
it  invest  them  with  power  to  control  our  opinions  or  our 
practice  1  Are  we  to  follow  thejn,  any  farther  than  they 
followed  Christ  and  the  Apostles  ?  And  when  we  find 
uninspired  men  differ  among  themselves,  as  they  always 
have  done,  especially  in  regard  to  church  government ; 
to  which  of  them  shall  we  submit  ?  Some  say,  to  tlie 
most  ancient, — to  those  who  lived  nearest  to  the  Apostles, 
and  who  were  most  likely  to  know  what  the  mind  of  the 
Apostles  was.  But  what  special  title  had  the  most  an- 
cient Christians  to  dictate  to  those  who  should  come  af- 
ter them  1  Were  there  not  contentions,  and  errors,  and 
corruptions  among  them  ?  And  why  is  it  not  just  as 
proper  and  necessary  for  us  to  examine  their  opinions 
and  practices,  and  to  receive  or  reject  them  according  as 
they  agree  or  disagree  with  the  word  of  God,  as  it  is  that 
we  should  treat  the  opinions  and  practices  of  modern 
Divines  in  this  manner  1  Who  will  assert,  that  unin- 
spired men  in  the  primitive  church, — ^men  just  recovered 
from  the  errors  of  Judaism,  subject  to  so  much  ignorance 
and  prejudice,  and  exposed  to  so  many  influences  adverse 
to  the  purity  of  our  religion, — who  will  assert  that  such 


68  LECTUREIII. 

men  in  such  circumstances,  are  entitled  to  our  venera- 
tion and  confidence,  above  the  best  men  that  have  lived 
since  the  Reformation  1  If  we  were  reduced  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  following  mere  human  guides, — uninspired 
teachers  of  religion  ;  who  of  us  would  not  prefer  Calvin, 
Leighton  and  Scott,  Howe,  Edwards  and  Dwight,  before 
Tertullian,  Cyril  and  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Ambrose  and 
Augustine  ? 

The  remarkable  saying  of  Tertullian  has  been  often 
repeated  ;  "  Whatever  is  ^rst  is  true ;  whatever  is  later 
is  false"  Look  at  this  a  moment.  The  traditions  of 
the  Jews,  which  made  void  the  law  of  God,  were  '^jirst ;" 
and  Christ's  sermon  on  the  mount  was  *'  later"  It  may 
be  said,  the  law  of  God  was  still  ^^  first"  and  those  tra- 
ditions "  later P  This  I  admit.  And  I  say  too,  that  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures  were  ^^ first"  and  the  writ- 
ings of  the  early  Fathers  "  later."  The  rule  of  Tertul- 
lian is  sometimes  right,  and  sometimes  wrong,  and  of 
course  cannot  be  relied  upon.  It  is  not  a  fact,  that  men 
were,  in  all  cases,  nearer  to  the  truth,  in  proportion  as 
they  lived  nearer  to  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  Who  will 
say,  that  the  Catholic  writers,  who  supported  all  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  Church  of  Rome  previously  to  the  days 
of  Luther,  were  nearer  to  the  truth,  than  the  great  lights 
of  the  Reformed  churches  ? 

Some  think,  that  those  opinions  and  practices,  in 
which  tlie  Fathers  all  agreed,  must  be  supposed  to  cor- 
respond with  the  instructions  of  the  Apostles.  In  regard 
to  this,  I  remark,  first,  that  the  Fathers  were  all  agreed 
on  hardly  any  subject,  certainly  not  on  the  subject  now 
under  consideration.  But,  secondly,  if  they  had  all  been 
agreed,  it  would  prove  nothing  to  the  purpose.     For  if 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  69 

a  few  good  men  may  agree  in  adopting  a  particular  error ^ 
why  may  not  many  1  We  well  know  that  the  Fathers 
generally  fell  into  palpable  mistakes  on  moral  and  reli- 
gious subjects.  And  can  we  set  limits  to  the  number  of 
uninspired  men,  who,  under  the  influence  of  their  own 
imperfections,  and  of  unpropitious  outward  circumstan- 
ces, may  fall  into  false  opinions  or  wrong  practices? 
We  can  never  safely  make  it  our  rule  to  follow  the  mul- 
titude,— to  believe  what  they  believe,  and  to  do  what 
they  do.  If  you  could  argue  in  favor  of  Prelacy,  that  it 
was  universally  adopted  not  only  in  the  fourth,  and  the 
third,  and  the  second  century,  but  before  the  close  of  the 
first ;  I  could  by  no  means  admit  the  validity  of  the  ar- 
gument, but  should  still  maintain,  that  no  agreement  of 
uninspired  men,  unsupported  by  the  Scriptures,  can  be 
obligatory  on  us.  I  must  adhere  steadfastly  to  the  duty 
enjoined  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  to  search  the  word 
of  God,  to  receive  the  truths  and  conform  to  the  direc- 
tions there  made  known,  and  to  reject  all  human  tradi- 
tions and  inventions  not  conformed  to  it.  In  direct  and 
everlasting  opposition  to  the  dogma  of  the  Romish 
church,  I  hold  that  the  Scriptures,  by  themselves,  are, 
to  all  Christians,  the  sufficient  and  only  authoritative 
rule  of  faith  and  practice. 


But  here  you  may  ask,  whether  there  was  not  such  a 
change  of  circumstances,  as  justified  the  Fathers  in  de- 
parting from  the  instructions  and  the  example  of  the 
Apostles.  We  have  already  considered  this  general 
question  in  relation  to  what  is  more  commonly  called 
church  discipline.    We  are  now  to  consider  it  in  relation 


70  LECTURE    III. 

to  different  orders  in  the  ministry ^  and  the  authority  of 
the  Prelate. 

The  parity  of  ministers,  which  was  established  by  the 
Apostles,  must  have  been  perfectly  just  and  proper  at  the 
time  ;  because  the  Apostles  were  infallible.  And  it  must 
be  just  and  proper  at  all  times,  unless  such  circumstan- 
ces occur,  as  plainly  show  it  to  be  the  will  of  God,  that 
Prelacy  should  be  introduced.  Is  it  then  a  fact,  that 
such  circumstances  have  occurred  1  And  particularly, 
did  they  occur  during  the  period  when  Prelacy  was  first 
introduced,  that  is,  during  one  or  two  hundred  years 
after  the  Apostolic  age?  And  was  there  at  that  time 
any  sufficient  reason  for  the  change  ? 

The  chief  reason  for  establishing  Prelacy,  according 
to  Jerome,  and  other  Christian  Fathers,  was,  that  divi- 
sions and  disorders  prevailed,  and  it  was  thought  these 
evils  might  be  avoided  by  investing  particular  ministers 
with  higher  power,  and  making  them  Overseers  or  Bish- 
ops, not  only  over  the  churches,  but  over  other  ministers. 
Our  inquiry  is,  whether  this  was  a  sufficient  reason  for 
the  change. 

Here  then  consider,  that  great  divisions  and  irregu- 
larities early  appeared  in  the  churches  which  the  Apos- 
tles planted,  to  which  they  wrote  Epistles,  and  over  which 
they  extended  their  watchful  care.  This  was  specially 
the  case  in  the  Corinthian  church.  With  what  sorrow 
of  heart  did  Paul  notice  the  disorders  which  had  crept 
into  that  church,  or  that  cluster  of  churches  ;  and  with 
what  earnestness  did  he  labor  to  put  an  end  to  them !  And 
he  was  so  under  the  guidance  of  that  wisdom  which  is 
from  above,  that  he  must  have  known  what  means  wouM 
be  best  adapted  to  remove,  and  afterwards,  to  prevent, 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  71 

those  hurtful  disorders.  Why  did  he  not  hit  upon  the  ex- 
pedient, which  Episcopalians  would  instantly  resort  to  in 
any  such  case  ?  Why  did  he  not  plainly  tell  the  Corin- 
thians, that  common  ministers  and  the  members  of  the 
church  had  too  much  concern  in  administering  their  af- 
fairs, and  that,  if  they  would  keep  things  in  order,  they 
must  have  a  Bishop,  who  should  have  power  to  rule  over 
the  churches,  and  over  other  ministers  ?  There  was,  at 
that  time,  the  very  reason  for  introducing  Prelacy,  which 
has  been  considered  most  weighty.  There  could  not  have 
been  a  more  favorable  opportunity  to  make  the  change. 
The  Apostle  was  alive,  and  had  power  to  do  the  very  thing 
which  was  called  for.  The  reason  for  a  more  energetic 
government  existed  in  all  its  strength ;  and  the  Apostle 
knew  it.  He  told  them  in  the  way  of  solemn  rebuke, 
that  they  were  carnal ;  that  there  was  envying,  and  strife, 
and  divisions  among  them  ;  that  they  were  formed  into 
parties,  each  party  setting  up  its  own  favorite  teacher  ; 
that  there  were  enormous  immoralities  in  the  church ; 
and  that  they  were  guilty  of  shocking  irregularities,  even 
while  commemorating  the  death  of  Christ.  The  Apos- 
tle knew  of  all  these  disorders,  and  he  knew  what  was 
the  best  way  to  remedy  them,  and  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  the  church.  And  it  was  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world 
for  the  great  Apostle  to  say,  if  he  had  only  thought  so ; — 
you  have  tried  the  principle  of  equality  among  ministers, 
and  popular  proceedings  in  the  church,  long  enough.  You 
cannot  succeed,  while  there  are  so  many  concerned  in  the 
government.  You  must  have  a  Bishop.  But  the  Apos- 
tle did  not  think  so.  Amid  all  his  advices  to  the  Corin- 
thians, he  did  not  advise  to  anything  like  this.  He  had 
seen  what  evils  prevailed,  and  he  clearly  foresaw  what 


72 


LECTURE    III. 


divisions  and  strifes  would  disturb  and  injure  the  church- 
es after  his  decease.  But  so  it  was,  that  he  never  gave 
them  the  least  hint  in  favor  of  Prelacy. 

It  may  perhaps  be  alleged,  that  those  disorders,  which 
called  for  a  change  of  government,  afterwards  increased 
in  the  church.  Doubtless  this  was  the  case.  And  the 
Apostles  knew  it  would  be.  And  they  were  authorized 
to  do  whatever  the  order  and  prosperity  of  the  church 
then  required,  and  whatever  it  would  require  in  time  to 
come.  It  was  perfectly  within  their  province,  as  Apos- 
tles acting  in  the  name  of  Christ,  to  give  instructions  for 
the  use  of  Christians  through  all  ages,  to  the  end  of  the 
world.  In  many  respects  they  actually  did  this.  Why 
did  they  not  say  something  in  favor  of  Prelacy  ?  If  they 
saw  that  this  was  an  establishment  which  would  be  call- 
ed for  in  following  ages,  though  not  called  for  at  that 
time ;  why  did  they  not  leave  a  direction  to  this  effect, — 
that  when  circumstances  should  evidently  require  it,  min- 
isters and  churches  should  introduce  Prelacy,  or,  at 
least,  should  have  liberty  to  do  it  1 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is,  that  the  intro- 
duction of  Prelacy,  in  times  subsequent  to  the  Apostles, 
was  an  innovation,  wholly  unauthorized, — a  measure 
founded  on  reasons,  which  the  Apostles  themselves  had 
fully  considered,  but  which  they  did  not  regard  as  fa- 
voring such  a  change.  The  measure  was,  in  my  ap- 
prehension, adopted  from  the  faulty  inclination,  so  fre- 
quently found  even  in  good  men,  to  overlook  the  divine 
directions,  and  to  think  themselves  able  to  improve  the 
simple  institutions  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  early  Christian  Fathers  were  certainly  fallible. 
And  one  of  the  great  mistakes  which  they  appear  to  have 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  73 

made  in  regard  to  the  present  subject,  was,  their  suppos- 
ing that  the  various  evils  which  they  wished  to  remedy, 
arose  from  some  defect  in  the  system  of  ecclesiastical 
order  which  was  established  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 
Had  this  really  been  the  case ;  then  some  alteration  in 
that  system  might  have  answered  the  purpose  intended. 
But  the  dissensions,  and  party -strife,  and  other  evils, 
which  so  widely  prevailed,  sprung  from  another  and  a 
very  different  source,  that  is,  the  corrupt  inclinations  of 
men.  This  is  what  we  are  expressly  taught  by  the  Apos- 
tle, who  says  to  the  Corinthian  church  with  reference 
to  this  very  subject ;  "  ye  are  yet  carnal ;"  that  is,  under 
the  influence  of  corrupt,  earthly  affection.  "  For  where- 
as there  is  among  you  envying,  and  strife,  and  divisions; 
are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  as  men."  It  was  this  car- 
nal, sinful  state  of  Christians,  not  the  want  of  a  Bishop, 
which  was  the  source  of  the  evils  complained  of  Ac- 
cordingly when  the  Apostle  strives  most  earnestly  to 
remedy  these  evils,  he  does  not  recommend  any  change 
whatever  in  the  plan  of  Church  Government  which  had 
been  acted  upon  at  Corinth.  And  you  will  observe  that, 
instead  of  proposing  that  one  church  officer  should  be 
invested  with  authority  over  others,  he  really  teaches 
the  contrary.  For  he  labors  to  make  the  impression, 
that  the  ministers  of  religion,  even  Paul  and  Apollos  and 
Peter,  are  in  themselves  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing; 
that  their  success  depends  wholly  on  God ;  that  they  are 
all  fellow-laborers  and  fellow-servants  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  that  one  of  them  should  not  be  set  up  above 
others,  as  the  object  of  admiration,  or  the  head  of  a  party. 
Instead  of  giving  advice  to  the  Corinthians,  to  put  down 
their  dissensions  by  establishing  a  superior  order  in  the 


74  LECTUREIII. 

ministry,  and  a  more  consolidated  and  efficient  govern- 
ment in  the  church,  he  deals  plainly  and  faithfully  with 
their  hearts,  and  tells  them  that  the  disorders  of  which 
he  complains,  originated  there.  The  result  of  his  teach- 
ing is,  that  the  way  to  rid  themselves  of  the  hurtful  evils 
existing  among  them,  is,  to  subdue  that  inward,  spiritual 
evil  from  which  they  spring. 

Let  not  the  lesson  here  taught,  be  forgotten.  If  any 
of  you  suppose,  that  the  disorders  which  have  existed  and 
the  unhappy  events  which  have  often  taken  place  in  the 
Puritan  churches  and  among  the  Puritan  ministers  of 
New  England,  have  sprung  chiefly,  or  in  any  considera- 
ble degree,  from  defects  in  our  plan  of  Church  Govern- 
ment, and  that  a  remedy  may  be  found  in  the  adoption 
of  an  essentially  different  plan ;  you  have,  in  my  appre- 
hension, fallen  into  a  great  mistake.  There  may  indeed 
be  faults,  as  I  doubt  not  there  are,  in  our  system  of  Ec- 
clesiastical Polity,  and  these  faults  may  have  more  or  less 
augmented  the  evils  complained  of;  and,  in  relation  to 
this  matter,  the  Head  of  the  Church  may  call  us  to  some 
special  and  important  duties.  But  keep  in  mind,  that 
the  principal  source  of  the  evils  lies  in  the  faulty  disposi- 
tions and  characters  of  ministers  and  church  members. 
Were  ministers  and  Christians  right, — did  they  bear  the 
image  of  Christ,  and  abound  in  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ; 
they  would  honor  God,  and  be  peaceful,  orderly  and 
happy,  although  their  form  of  government  might  be  very 
imperfect.  But  if  they  are  essentially  wanting  in  these 
moral  excellencies, — if,  like  Christians  at  Corinth,  they 
are  carnal,  and  walk  as  unsanctified  men;  evils  will 
come.  It  is  in  vain  to  expect  that,  by  any  change  in 
outward  forms,  and  particularly  by  a  change  unauthor- 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  75 

ized  by  the  word  of  God,  we  can  prevent  those  disorders, 
which  arise  from  the  inward  corruptions  of  men  profes- 
sing godliness.  Guard  against  so  great  a  mistake.  The 
Christian  Fathers  thought  they  could  cure  prevailing 
divisions  and  wicked  practices  among  Christians  by 
changing  the  form  of  church  government,  and  by  giving 
higher,  and  still  higher  authority  to  Bishops.  But  did 
they  succeed?  Did  disorder  and  immorality  subside? 
Or  did  they  grow  less  from  time  to  time,  in  proportion 
as  the  power  of  hierarchs  was  increased  ?  How  was  it, 
when  ecclesiastical  government  was  most  completely 
consolidated,  and  the  chief  Bishop  was  invested  with 
plenary  authority,  not  only  over  churches  and  Priests, 
but  over  Kings  and  Emperors  ?  When  was  it  that  moral 
evils,  the  most  tremendous  and  desolating,  overspread  the 
nations  of  Christendom  ?  And  what  was  the  actual  result 
of  the  Prelatical  scheme  of  Church  Government,  from  its 
commencement  and  gradual  spread  in  ages  subsequent 
to  the  Apostles,  to  the  period  of  its  highest  supremacy 
just  before  the  Reformation?  Prelacy,  in  various  forms 
and  degrees,  certainly  had  a  long  and  thorough  trial. 
What  was  the  result  ? 

I  have  now  examined  the  question,  whether  there  were 
any  sufficient  reasons  after  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  for 
departing  from  the  simple  plan  of  Church  Government 
which  prevailed  in  their  day,  and  introducing  the  Epis- 
copal scheme.  The  particular  reason  which  induced 
the  change,  as  stated  by  Jerome,  was  the  existence  of 
divisions  and  contentions  in  the  churches.  We  have 
seen,  that  this  very  reason  existed  in  its  full  strength, 
during  the  life  of  the  Apostles,  and  was  particularly  con- 
sidered and  publicly  noticed  by  the  Apostle  Paul;  who^ 


76  LECTURE    III. 

however,  looked  upon  those  evils  as  arising,  not  from 
the  want  of  Prelacy,  but  from  the  want  of  a  right  spirit 
among  Christians;  and  who,  of  course,  found  in.  the 
existence  of  those  evils,  no  reason  for  a  change  in  the 
ecclesiastical  polity  which  he  had  established.  We  have 
seen  too  that  Prelacy,  when  introduced,  did  not  answer 
the  purpose  intended ;  that  under  its  influence  the  ex- 
isting evils  rather  increased ;  and  that,  when  its  power 
came  to  its  highest  elevation,  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
swayed  the  sceptre  over  all  Europe,  then  it  was  that  the 
most  shocking  enormities  prevailed.  We  have  consid- 
ered that  Prelacy  in  that  line  has  had  a  fair  trial,  and 
has  clearly  shown  what  are  its  genuine  fruits. 

In  my  remarks  on  this  point,  I  have  been  willing  to 
admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  Prelacy  was  intro- 
duced very  early,  that  is,  in  the  period  immediately 
succeeding  the  Apostles.  And  the  impression  which  I 
have  aimed  to  make  upon  your  minds,  is,  that  those  who 
succeeded  the  Apostles,  being  uninspired  and  fallible 
men,  were  not  in  any  way  authorized  to  make  an  essen- 
tial change  in  the  existing  plan  of  Church  Government, 
and  that  what  was  done  on  the  subject,  if  it  had  really 
been  done  in  the  age  next  to  that  of  the  Apostles,  and 
even  by  those  who  had  seen  the  Apostles,  cannot  bind 
our  consciences; — unless  it  can  be  shown, — which  it 
cannot  be, — that  they  received  some  instructions  or  some 
power  to  act  on  the  subject,  beyond  what  is  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament. 

But  I  have  for  argument's  sake,  admitted  more  than 
is  true.  "  And  I  must  here  state  it,  as  another  serious 
objection  against  Prelacy,  that  it  does  as  really  fail  of 
being  supported  by  the  practice  of  the  Primitive  church 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  77 

immediately  following  the  Apostles^  as  hy  the  Apostles 
themselves. 

If  the  Episcopal  scheme  had  prevailed  at  that  early 
period,  it  would  seem,  at  first  view,  to  furnish  a  plausi- 
ble argument  in  its  favor ;  as  it  might,  with  some  show 
of  reason,  be  alleged,  that  those  Christians  who  lived  at 
that  time,  and  some  of  whom  had  even  been  personally 
acquainted  with  the  Apostles,  undoubtedly  knew  what 
the  mind  of  the  Apostles  was,  and  were  disposed,  in  all 
their  proceedings,  to  conform  to  it.  But  it  has  been 
clearly  shown  by  different  writers,  and  acknowledged  by 
many  Episcopalians,  that  Prelacy  has  not  the  benefit  of 
this  argument.  I  have  no  time  to  go  into  a  particular 
consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  case  ;  and  must  con- 
tent myself,  according  to  a  previous  suggestion,  with 
merely  laying  before  you,  in  a  few  simple  propositions, 
what  I  apprehend  to  be  the  fair  results  of  the  most  learn- 
ed, laborious,  and  candid  investigation  of  the  subject  ; 
referring  you  to  the  works  in  which  the  investigation  is 
found  in  its  best  form. 

1.  No  satisfactory  proof  can  be  derived  from  Eccle- 
siastical History,  that  Prelacy  prevailed  more  or  less 
during  the  first  century.  The  Letters  of  Ignatius,  it  is 
well  known,  are  of  such  doubtful  authority,  that  they 
cannot  be  properly  appealed  to  in  this  controversy.  Cle- 
ment's Letters,  which  are  allowed  to  be  genuine,  and 
which  were  written  near  the  close  of  the  first  century, 
contain  evidence  against  the  existence  of  Prelacy  at  that 
time.  See  quotations  from  Clement's  Letters,  in  Cole- 
man's Primitive  Church,  p.  164,  5. 

2.  There  is  no  clear  evidence  that  Prelacy  prevailed, 
or  began  to  prevail,  during  the  first  half  of  the  second 


78  LECTURE    III. 

century.  The  Fathers,  who  lived  at  that  period,  have 
left  nothing  that  favors  the  idea  that  this  was  the  case ; 
and  the  writings  of  those  who  followed,  contain  much 
evidence  to  the  contrary.  The  supposition  of  some  Epis- 
copalians, that  the  Apostles  gave  oral  instructions,  which 
are  not  recorded,  but  which  were  of  divine  authority, 
and  were  carried  into  effect  by  those  who  came  after 
them,  has  nothing  to  support  it,  or  to  render  it  even  pro- 
bable. If  there  were  any  such  instructions,  who  were 
the  men  that  must  have  received  them,  and  that  must 
have  remembered  and  executed  them,  except  those  who 
had  a  personal  intercourse  with  the  Apostles  ?  But  as 
it  is  evident  that  neither  they  nor  their  immediate  suc- 
cessors did  execute  any  such  instructions  ;  it  is  reasona- 
ble to  conclude  that  the  supposed  instructions  had  not 
been  received.  For  who  would  be  willing  to  charge  the 
early  Fathers  with  neglecting,  for  fifty  years,  instructions 
\vhich  some  of  them  had  received,  and  which  all  of  them 
knew  had  been  received,  from  the  lips  of  the  Apostles  ? 
That  the  Apostles  gave  directions  in  favor  of  Prelacy, 
which  were  to  remain  unexecuted  till  a  distant  future 
time,  is  utterly  incredible.  But  there  is  positive  evi- 
dence, that  during  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  it 
was  as  it  had  been  before ; — that  the  same  officers,  with- 
out distinction  of  rank,  were  called  Bishops  and  Presby- 
ters interchangeably,  and  that  the  members  of  the  church 
had  an  important  agency  in  disciplining  offenders,  and 
in  managing  other  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

3.  When  Prelacy  was  introduced,  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  or  beginning  of  the  third  century,  it  was  in- 
troduced very  gradually.  And  for  some  time  after  Bish- 
ops began  here  and  there  to  be  distinguished  above  their 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  79 

brethren,  it  was  only  a  temporary  or  occasional  distinc- 
tion,— much  like  the  distinction  which  is  now  conferred 
on  those  who  are  made  Moderators  or  Presidents  of  ec- 
clesiastical Assemblies, — those  Bishops  still  having  per- 
manent oversight  over  single  churches,  not  over  a  dio- 
cese,   and   claiming  no  exclusive   right   of  ordination. 
There  was  nothing  which  had  the  essential  features  of 
what  is  now  called  Prelacy,  for  at  least  two  hundred 
years  after  the  commencement   of  the   Christian  era. 
And  while  modern  Episcopalians  can  plead  in  defence 
of  their  scheme,  the  general  practice  of  the  church  in 
the  fourth  and  fifth  and  following  centuries,  they  cannot 
plead  that  such  a  practice  gained  footing  more  or  less  in 
the  earliest  periods  of  the  church.     Accordingly,  when 
they  speak  o^  Primitive  practice  as  in  their  favor,  they 
ought  in  justice  to  say,  that  they  use  the  word  Primitive 
with  great  latitude,  and  not  as  relating  to  any  time  pre- 
vious to  the  latter  part  of  the  second  or  beginning  of  the 
third  century.     What  is  most  properly  called  Primitive, 
they  cannot  claim. — When  any  man  in  New  England 
says,  that  it  was  the  Primitive  practice  of  the  Puritans 
to  keep  the  Sabbath  very  strictly,   and  to  take  special 
pains  for  the  literary  and  religious   education   of  the 
young ;  is  he  not  understood  by  every  one  to  refer  to 
their  practice  the  first  forty  or  fifty  years  after  their  arri- 
val here  ?     And  should  we  not  think  him  guilty  of  a 
great  impropriety,  if  he  should  assert  that  this  or  that 
was  the  Primitive  practice  of  the  Puritans  in  New  Eng- 
land, when  there  was  no  such  practice  for  the  first  half 
century  and  more,  and  the  practice  spoken  of  was  intro- 
duced gradually  afterwards,  and  was  a  real  innovation 
upon  primitive  usage,  and  a  palpable  departure  from  it  ? 


80  LECTURE   111. 

Primitive  practice  is  the  original  ox  first  practice ;  prac- 
tice from  the  beginning.  If  any  still  think  themselves 
warranted  to  say,  that  Prelacy  was  truly  the  Primitive 
practice,  I  prefer  not  to  contend  with  them,  but  to  leave 
them  to  settle  the  question  with  the  most  learned  and 
impartial  authors,  ancient  and  modern,  who  have  written 
on  the  subject. 

The  following  are  the  principal  works  to  which  I  must 
refer  those,  who  wish  to  pursue  the  examination  of  the 
subject  more  particularly  and  fully,  than  I  am  able  to  do 
in  these  Lectures. 

Jerome's  Annotations  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  Nean- 
der's  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  his  Planting 
and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church  by  the  Apostles. 
Campbell's  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History.  Chaun- 
cy's  View  of  Episcopacy.  Enquiry  into  the  Constitution 
of  the  Primitive  Church,  by  Sir  Peter  King,  Chancellor 
of  England.  Review  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  by  Dr. 
Mason  in  the  Christian  Magazine.  Miller's  Letters  on 
the  Constitution  and  Order  of  the  Christian  Ministry. 
Goode's  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice,  particularly 
vol.  ii.  Smyth  on  Presbytery  and  Prelacy.  Barnes's 
Apostolic  Church.     Coleman's  Primitive  Church. 

In  this  list  you  find  two  Episcopalians,  King  and 
Goode,  both  writers  of  distinguished  reputation.  As  the 
last  work  abovementioned,  by  Rev.  Lyman  Coleman, 
will  be  issued  from  the  press  about  the  same  time  with 
these  Lectures,  and  of  course  is  not  yet  known  to  the 
public;  I  would  just  say,  that  in  my  opinion,  the  work 
evinces  excellent  talents  and  scholarship,  patient  and 
thorough  research,  and  entire  fairness  and  impartiality. 
It  was  composed  in  the  most  favorable  circumstances, 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  81 

and  comes  forth  with  the  special  recommendation  of  Ne- 
ander,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  Historians  of  this 
or  any  other  age. 

Before  closing  this  Lecture,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to 
make  the  following  supposition.  Suppose  that  those 
Episcopalians,  who  hold  to  the  High  Church  principles, 
should  find,  on  farther  inquiry,  that  there  is  no  clear  evi- 
dence that  Prelacy  existed  in  the  Apostolic  age,  or  in 
the  age  following,  and  should  be  as  fully  convinced  as 
Archbishop  Whately  and  a  multitude  of  other  Episcopa- 
lians have  been  and  are,  that  their  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
Succession  and  the  Divine  Right  of  Prelacy,  is  destitute 
of  proof, — suppose  they  should  be  well  convinced  of  this, 
and  should,  like  Whately  and  others,  candidly  admit  it : 
would  they,  on  that  account,  renounce  Episcopacy? 
Would  they  not  at  once  adopt  the  more  moderate  and 
rational  principles  which  have  governed  a  large  part  of 
ministers  and  a  larger  part  of  intelligent  laymen  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  both  in  America  and  Great  Britain  ? 
Now  if  this  would  be  the  case  with  High  Churchmen, 
as  I  am  confident  it  would  be ;  then  I  should  think  they 
might  safely  relax  their  efforts  a  little  in  defending  their 
peculiar  and  exclusive  doctrines,  seeing  that  those  doc- 
trines are  not,  even  in  their  view,  essential  to  the  exist- 
ence of  their  church,  and  seeing  that,  in  the  view  of  so 
many  of  their  Episcopal  brethren,  and  in  the  view  of  all 
Protestant  Christians  except  themselves,  their  church 
can  exist  and  prosper  far  better  without  those  principles, 
than  with  them. 


LECTURE   IV. 


The  next  objection  which  I  shall  urge  is  against  what 
is  involved  in  the  Episcopal  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion. I  am  aware  that  this  doctrine,  as  now  held  by  a 
considerable  proportion  of  Episcopal  ministers  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  that  is,  by  those  who  are  called  the 
High  Church  party,  is  and  has  been  rejected  by  another 
part.  And  I  would  here  give  you  notice,  that  what  I 
have  to  offer  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  and  much 
that  I  have  laid  before  you  on  other  subjects,  has  no  re- 
lation to  those  Episcopalians  who  dissent  from  this  doc- 
trine, and  who  adhere  to  the  Episcopal  church  on 
other  and  more  rational  principles.  My  remarks  here 
will  lie  against  the  doctrine  itself;  which  I  understand 
to  be  this ;  that  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion are  restricted  to  the  channel  of  a  ministry  Episco- 
pally  ordained ;  that  no  one  is  a  true  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, unless  he  has  been  duly  ordained  by  a  Bishop,  duly 
consecrated  by  another  Bishop,  and  he  by  another,  and 
so  on  through  an  unbroken  series  of  duly  consecrated 
Bishops  extending  back  to  the  Apostles  ;  that  no  minis- 
ters who  are  not  found  in  that  line  of  succession,  have 
been  rightly  ordained,  or  have  a  right  to  preach,  or  to 
administer  the  sacraments;  that  if  non-Episcopal  minis- 
ters undertake  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments, 
they  assume  what  does  not  belong  to  them,  and  their 


S4  LECTUREIV. 

ministrations  must  be  expected  to  prove  inefficacious,  as 
they  have  not  received  and  cannot  communicate  the  sa- 
cramental virtue ;  that  whatever  their  intellectual  and 
spiritual  qualifications  may  be,  they  are  not  true  Chris- 
tian ministers;  while  those  who  have  been  Episcopally 
ordained  are  to  be  acknowledged  as  true  ministers  of 
Christ,  however  ignorant  and  wicked  they  may  be. 

There  are  some  doctrines  which  are  so  extravagant, 
that  the  bare  statement  of  them  is,  with  all  intelligent 
and  unprejudiced  persons,  a  sufficient  confutation.  And 
I  think  this  doctrine  is  nearly  of  this  character. 

All  that  my  limits  will  permit  me  to  do  in  this  place, 
is,  to  make  some  quotations  from  writers  of  the  highest 
reputation,  with  a  few  remarks  of  my  own. 

"  Whether  we  consider  the  palpable  absurdity  of  this 
doctrine,  its  utter  destitution  of  historical  evidence,  or 
the  outrage  it  implies  on  all  Christian  charity,  it  is  equal- 
ly revolting.  The  arguments  against  it  are  infinite ;  the 
evidence  for  it  absolutely  nothing.  It  rests  not  upon 
one  doubtful  assumption,  but  upon  fifty. — First,  the  very 
basis  on  which  it  rests — the  claim  of  Episcopacy  itself 
to  be  considered  undoubtedly  and  exclusively  of  Apos- 
tolical origin — has  been  most  fiercely  disputed  by  men 
of  equal  erudition  and  acuteness,  and,  so  far  as  can  be 
judged,  of  equal  integrity  and  piety. — And  one  would 
think  that  the  only  lesson,  which  could  or  would  be 
learned  from  the  controversy,  would  be  the  duty  of  mu- 
tual charity,  and  a  disposition  to  concede,  that  the  bless- 
ings of  Christianity  are  compatible  with  various  systems 
of  church  polity.  God  forbid  that  we  should  for  a  mo- 
ment admit  that  they  are  restricted  to  any  one. — But  this 
first  proposition,  however  doubtful,  is  susceptible  of  evi- 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  85 

dence  almost  demonstrative,  compared  with  that  offered 
for  half  a  dozen  others  involved  in  the  integral  reception 
of  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical  succession.  Accordingly, 
there  are  thousands  of  Episcopalians,  who,  while,  they 
affirm  a  preponderance  of  evidence  in  favor  of  Episcopa- 
cy,  contemptuously  repudiate  this  incomprehensible  dog- 
ma.— The  theory  is,  that  each  Bishop,  from  the  Apos- 
tolic times,  has  received  in  his  consecration  a  mysterious 
*'  gift,"  and  also  transmits  to  every  Priest  at  his  ordina- 
tion a  mysterious  "  gift,"  indicated  by  the  awful  words, 
Receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  on  this  the  right  of  Priests 
to  assume  their  functions,  and  the  preternatural  grace  of 
the  sacraments  administered  by  them,  depends;  that 
Bishops,  once  consecrated,  instantly  become  invested 
with  the  remarkable  property  of  transmitting  the  "  gift" 
to  others ; — that  this  high  gift  has  been  incorruptibly 
transmitted — from  the  primitive  age  till  now — through 
the  hands  of  impure,  profligate  and  heretical  ecclesias- 
tics ; — and  that  it  is  perfectly  irrespective  of  the  moral 
character  and  qualifications  of  both  Bishop  and  Priest." 
"  Numberless  are  the  questions  which  reason  and 
charity  forthwith  put  to  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine. — 
What  is  imparted?  What  transmitted? — Is  consecra- 
tion or  ordination  accompanied,  (as  in  primitive  times,) 
by  miraculous  powers,by  any  invigoration  of  intellect,  by 
increase  of  knowledge,  by  greater  purity  of  heart  ?  It 
is  not  pretended  :  and  if  it  were,  facts  contradict  it,  as 
all  history  testifies.  The  ecclesiastic  who  is  ignorant  or 
impure  before  ordination,  is  just  as  much  so  afterwards. 
— Do  the  parties  themselves  profess  to  be  conscious  of 
receiving  the  gift  ?  No.  Is  the  conveyance  made  evi- 
dent to  us  by  any  proof  which  certifies  any  fact  vvhatso- 


S6 


LECTURE    IV. 


ever,  by  sense,  experience,  or  consciousness?  It  is  not 
affirmed.  In  a  word,  it  appears  to  be  a  nonentity  in- 
scribed with  a  very  formidable  name,r — a  very  substan- 
tial shadow." 

"  Again,  who  can  certify  that  this  gift  has  been  incor- 
ruptibly  transmitted  through  the  impurities,  heresies  and 
ignorance  of  the  dark  ages  ?  Is  there  nothing  that  can 
invalidate  Orders? — The  chances  are  infinite  that  there 
have  been  flaws  somewhere  or  other  in  the  long  chain 
of  succession;  and — as  no  one  knows  where  the  fatal 
breach  may  have  been,  it  is  sufficient  to  spread  universal 
panic  through  the  whole  church.  What  Bishop  can  be 
sure  that  he  and  his  predecessors  in  the  same  line  have 
always  been  duly  consecrated  ?  or  what  Presbyter,  that 
he  was  ordained  by  a  Bishop  who  had  a  right  to  ordain  ?" 

"  But  the  difficulties  do  not  end  here.     It  is  asked, 

how  a  man  who  is  no  true  Christian,  can  be  a  true  Chris- 
tian minister ; — how  he,  who  is  not  even  a  disciple  of 
Christ,  can  be  a  genuine  successor  of  the  Apostles." 

"  But — will  Christians  be  content  to  receive  this 
strange  doctrine  ?  Are  they  willing  to  sacrifice  even 
charity  itself  to  an  absurdity  ?  Powerful  as  are  the  ar- 
guments on  all  hands  against  this  paradox,  none  is  so 
powerful  with  us  as  this. — We  feci  that  if  there  were 
nothing  else  to  say,  there  is  no  proposition  more  certain, 
than  that  a  dogma,  which  consigns  the  Lutheran,  the 
Scottish,  and  indeed  the  whole  reformed  non-Episcopal 
clergy  to  contempt,  however  holy,  and  which  authenti- 
cates the  claims  of  every  Episcopal  Priest,  however  unho- 
ly, — must  be  utterly  alien  from  the  spirit  of  the  New 
Testament."* 

*  See  Edinburgh  Review,  1843,  On  Puseyism,  or,  the  Oxford 
Tractarian  School. 


CHURCH    GO  VE  RNME  NT  .  9t 

"  Since  the  first  century,  not  less,  in  all  probability, 
than  a  hundred  thousand  persons  have  exercised  the 
functions  of  Bishops.  That  many  of  these  have  not  been 
Bishops  by  Apostolic  succession,  is  quite  certain.  Hook- 
er admits  that  deviations  from  the  general  rule  have  been 
frequent,  and,  with  a  boldness  worthy  of  his  high  and 
statesman-like  intellect,  pronounces  them  to  have  been 
often  justifiable."* 

The  doctrine  of  Apostolical  succession  is  overthrown 
by  the  clear  and  abundant  evidence  which  we  have  from 
the  early  Fathers,  that  ordination  was  performed  by 
Presbyters.  Any  one  who  wishes  to  be  acquainted  with 
this  evidence  in  its  details,  may  consult  Goode's  Divine 
Rule,  vol.  ii.  Coleman's  work  on  the  Constitution  and 
Worship  of  the  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church, 
Smyth's  Presbytery  and  Prelacy,  and  other  well  known 
works. 

That  there  may  be  lawful  ordinations  by  Presbyters 
without  a  Bishop  is  conceded  and  maintained  by  many 
Episcopalians,  and  those  of  the  first  respectability.  Hook- 
er gives  it  as  his  decided  opinion,  "  that  there  may  be 
sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordina- 
tions made  without  a  Bishop." 

Archbishop  Whately,  a  man  of  distinguished  talents, 
learning,  and  integrity,  and  sustaining  the  highest  office 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  after  a  thorough  examination 
of  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  succession,  comes  to  the 
conclusion,  that  it  is  destitute  of  satisfactory  proof. 

He  says :  *'  If  a  man  consider  it  as  highly  prohahle 
that  the  -particular  minister  at  whose  hands  he  receives 

*  See  Edinburgh  Review  for  1839,  On  Church  and  State. 


0»  LECTUREIV. 

the  sacred  ordinances,  is  really  apostolically  descended, 
this  is  the  very  utmost  point  to  which  he  can,  with  any 
semblance  of  reason,  attain :  and  the  more  he  reflects 
and  inquires,  the  more  cause  for  hesitation  will  he  find. 
There  is  not  a  rninistel-  in  Christendom  who  is  able  to 
trace  up  with  any  approach  to  certainty  his  own  spiritu- 
al pedigree," "If  a  Bishop  has  not  been  duly  conse- 
crated  his  ordinations  are  null ;  and  so  are  the  min- 
istrations of  those  ordained  by  him, and  so  on  with- 
out end.  The  poisonous  taint  of  informality,  if  it  once 
creep  in  undetected,  will  spread  the  infection  of  nullity 
to  an  indefinite  extent. — And  who  can  pronounce  that 
during  the — dark  ages,  no  such  taint  was  ever  introdu- 
ced 1  Irregularities  could  not  have  been  wholly  excluded 
without  a  perpetual  miracle.  Amidst  the  numerous  cor- 
ruptions of  doctrine  and  of  practice,  and  gross  supersti- 
tions, that  crept  in — we  find  descriptions  not  only  of  the 
profound  ignorance  and  profligacy  of  many  of  the  clergy, 
but  of  the  grossest  irregularities  in  respect  of  discipline 
and  form.  We  read  of  Bishops  consecrated  when  mere 
children  ; — of  men  officiating  who  barely  knew  their  let- 
ters;— of  Prelates  expelled,  and  others  put  in  their  place, 
by  violence ; — of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen  and  hab- 
itual drunkards,  admitted  to  holy  orders; — and  in  short, 
of  the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder  and  indecen- 
cy. It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one,  even  moderately 
acquainted  with  history,  can  feel — any  approach  to  cer- 
tainty, that  amidst  all  this  confusion  and  corruption, 
every  requisite  form  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly  ad- 
hered to; and  that  no  one  not  duly  consecrated  or 

ordained,  was  admitted  to  sacred  ofl[ices. 

"  The  ultimate  consequence  must  be,  that  any  one 


CHURCHGOVERNRlENT.  89 

who  sincerely  believes  that  his  claim  to  the  benefits  of  the 
gospel  covenant  depends  on  his  own  minister's  claim  to 
the  supposed  sacramerital  virtue  of  true  ordination,  and 
this  again,  on  perfect  Apostolical  succession, — must  be 
involved,  in  proportion  as  he  reads,  and  inquires,  and  re- 
flects on  the  subject,  in  the  most  distressing  doubt  and 
perplexity."  The  whole  work  of  Whately  on  the  King- 
dom of  Christ  is  worthy  of  the  most  attentive  perusal. 

Archbishop  Usher,  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  affirmed,  that  in  ancient  times 
Presbyters  alone  successively  ordained  even  Bishops. 
And  he  said,  he  honored  the  non-Episcopal  churches  of 
Europe  as  true  members  of  the  church  universal,  and 
should  readily  receive  the  Sacrament  at  the  hands  of 
Dutch  ministers,  if  he  were  in  Holland.  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet  says :  "  It  was  acknowledged  by  the  stoutest  cham- 
pions of  Episcopacy,  before  these  late  unhappy  divisions, 
that  ordination  performed  by  Presbyters  in  case  of  ne- 
cessity, is  valid."  Sir  Peter  King  says,  he  finds  clear- 
er proofs  of  Presbyters  ordaining,  in  the  early  church, 
than  of  their  administering  the  Lord's  supper.  I  might 
multiply  testimonies  of  like  kind  from  Episcopalians  al- 
most without  end.  But  it  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to 
give  you  a  few  specimens. 

I  have  one  remark  of  my  own  to  add.  The  Apostle 
Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  gives  a  very 
particular  description  of  what  he  regards  as  essential 
qualifications  of  a  Bishop.  But  he  makes  no  mention 
of  the  circumstance  of  his  being  duly  ordained.  My  re- 
mark is,  that  had  he  attached  such  consequence  to  this 
circumstance,  as  many  do  at  this  day,  it  is  not  probable 
he  would  have  passed  it  in  silence.     In  this  and  in  every 


90  LECTUREIV. 

Other  instance  he  showed,  that  his  mind  was  intent  upon 
important  realities,  and  not  upon  outward  forms.  It  is 
indeed  said,  in  order  to  show  the  importance  of  outward, 
visible  forms  and  rites,  that  man  must  have  a  body  as 
well  as  a  spirit.  I  agree  to  this.  But  we  must  take 
care  to  let  the  body  be  as  God  has  made  it,  never  at- 
tempting to  add  to  it,  or  in  any  way  to  alter  it.  If  true 
spiritual  religion  is  to  be  embodied  in  outward  forms  and 
ceremonies,  let  those  forms  and  ceremonies  be  as  God 
in  the  New  Testament  appointed  them  to  be.  This  vi- 
sible body  of  internal,  invisible  Christianity,  when  not 
misshapen  or  made  monstrous  by  man's  contrivances,  is 
a  fit  companion  and  help  to  the  spirit. 

I  must  now  refer  this  doctrine  of  Apostolical  succes- 
cession  to  your  own  free  consideration ;  only  expressing 
my  conviction,  that  the  doctrine  understood  in  that  high 
and  exclusive  sense  in  which  I  have  here  considered  it, 
though  held  very  tenaciously  by  many  at  the  present 
time,  will,  by  its  extravagance  and  uncharitableness,  oc- 
casion reproach  and  injury  to  the  cause  of  Episcopacy, 
and  will,  for  that  and  other  reasons,  be  gradually,  and, 
in  the  end,  entirely  abandoned  by  Protestant  Episcopa- 
lians,— retaining  its  seat  only  where  it  properly  belongs. 

I  cannot  leave  the  present  topic  without  adverting  to 
the  general  question  of  divine  appointment  and  divine 
authority,  in  regard  to  the  gospel  ministry.  Let  me  say 
then,  that  Presbyterians  and  Congregational ists  hold  as 
much  as  Episcopalians,  that  the  gospel  ministry  is  ap- 
pointed of  God,  and  derives  all  its  authority  ultimately 
from  God,  not  from  man.  But  it  is  here  as  in  other 
cases,  that  God's  appointment  is  ordinarily  carried  into 
effect  and  his  government  administered,  through  the  agen- 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  91 

cy  of  man.     We  see  it  to  be  so  in  the  general  move- 
ments of  divine  providence.     But  it  would  be  culpable 
presumption  in  us  to  decide,  that  the  manner  in  which 
God  executes  his  appointments  is  and  must  be  always 
the  same.     In  his  infinite  wisdom,  he  chooses  a  variety 
of  methods,  always  adapting  them  to  circumstances,  and 
to  the  ends  which  he  had  in  view.     Under  the  former 
dispensation,  he  gave  Prophets  to  his  people  in  ways 
suited  to  the  purposes  intended.     At  the  beginning  of 
the  new  dispensation,  he  gave  Apostles  to  be  witnesses 
of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  preachers  of  his  gospel,  the 
first  founders  of  Christian  churches,  etc.,  and  he  gave 
them  in  a  manner  adapted  to  those  objects.     But  even 
here,  the  manner  was  not  the  same.    Matthias  was  cho- 
sen in  a  way  different  from  the  other  eleven,  and  Paul  in 
a  way  different  from  any  of  the  twelve.     But  the  age  of 
miracles  has  ceased,  and  the  divine  appointment  is  now 
executed  in  the  ordinary  course  of  Providence.     The 
essential  qualifications  of  ministers  are  pointed  out  by 
an  inspired  Apostle,  but  not  the  particular  manner  in 
which  they  shall  come  into  the  sacred  office.     If  minis- 
ters possess  the  qualifications  required,  and  are  inducted 
into  the  ministry  in  a  regular  and  becoming  manner,  and 
do  the  duties  of  the  oflice  faithfully,  they  are  GocVs  min- 
isters, and  he  truly  gives  them  for  the  good  of  his  church, 
whether  he  brings  them  into  the  ofl[ice  in  one  way  or 
another.     Faithful  ministers  in  the  Episcopal  church 
are  doubtless  God's  gift,  and  Christians  should  thank 
him  for  them,  and  receive  them   as  such.     And  many 
and  precious  have  been  these  gifts,   and  precious  the 
blessings  resulting  from  them.     And  are  not  ministers 
in  the  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  Baptist  and  Metho- 


92 


LECTURE    IV, 


dist  churches  equally  God's  gift  ?  And  should  not 
Christians,  particularly  those  who  have  received  spiritual 
profit  under  their  ministry,  thank  God  for  them,  and  for 
all  the  blessings  resulting  from  their  pious  labors'?  What- 
ever may  be  the  particular  mode  of  proceeding  among 
men  in  introducing  well  qualified  and  faithful  ministers 
into  the  sacred  ofl^ce  ;  they  are  there  by  divine  appoint- 
ment. They  are  God's  ministers ;  and  he  owns  them 
and  blesses  them  as  such.  And  they  have  equally  a  di- 
vine right  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  the  ministerial  of- 
fice. 

The  principle  which  I  maintain  may  be  illustrated  by 
a  particular  reference  to  civil  government.  The  Bible 
teaches  as  plainly  and  expressly,  that  civil  rulers  are 
ministers  of  God,  and  divinely  appointed,  as  that  preach- 
ers of  the  gospel  and  pastors  of  churches  are  so.  Mo- 
ses, and  Samuel,  and  Saul,  and  David,  were  set  apart  to 
their  oflice  as  rulers,  by  a  special  and  miraculous  divine 
interposition.  Afterwards  the  oflfice  of  chief  ruler  or 
king  became  hereditary;  and  those  who  held  the  oflSce 
on  the  ground  of  hereditary  right  were  lawful  kings,  and 
were  divinely  appointed.  But  observe,  that  when  Ne- 
buchadnezzar, the  wicked  king  of  Babylon,  conquered 
the  Jews  and  acquired  dominion  over  them,  the  Prophet 
Jeremiah  exhorted  and  commanded  them  to  **  serve 
the  king  of  Babylon,"  and  rebuked  the  false  prophets 
who  endeavoured  to  persuade  them  not  to  serve  him. 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  then  the  divinely  appointed  ruler 
of  the  Jews; — God  sent  him  to  reign  over  them,  and  it 
was  their  duty  to  submit  to  him  as  "  the  ordinance  of 
God  ;"  and  obedience  to  him  became  obedience  to  God. 
Even  when  the  Jews  returned  from  their  captivity,  their 


CHURCHGOVERNMENT.  93 

rulers  were  indebted  for  their  autliority  to  Cyrus  and  his 
successors.  Now  pass  over  the  various  events  which 
occurred  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  come  down  to  the 
time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  Through  the  arrange- 
ments of  a  just  and  sovereign  Providence,  the  supreme 
government  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Romans, 
and  CgBsar  was  the  king  of  the  Jewish  nation.  But  he 
came  to  be  so,  not  by  any  supernatural  or  special  divine 
designation,  but  by  the  very  ambiguous  right  of  conquest 
and  superior  power.  It  was  however  a  wise  and  right- 
eous God,  that  shaped  the  concerns  of  both  these  na- 
tions, and,  by  his  overruling  providence,  subjected  the 
Jews  to  the  Roman  power.  And  whatever  may  be  said 
ofthe  means  by  which  the  Romans  brought  the  Jews 
into  subjection,  or  of  the  way  in  which  Cgesar  came  to 
have  authority  over  them ;  yet  as,  under  divine  Provi- 
dence, he  actually  possessed  that  authority,  and  was  the 
king  of  the  Jews,  Jesus  recognized  that  authority  and 
submitted  to  it,  and  inculcated  the  duty  of  obedience 
upon  his  disciples.  The  Apostles  did  the  same.  The 
rulers  whom  they  acknowledged  as  the  ministers  of  God, 
and  whom  Christians  were  to  honor  and  obey,  were  gen- 
erally wicked,  tyrannical  and  cruel  men.  But  the  Apos- 
tles considered  them  as -appointed  and  sent  of  God  to  fill 
the  office  of  rulers.  The  language  of  Paul,  Rom.  xiii, 
is  very  plain.  He  calls  rulers, — and  such  as  were  then 
in  office, — "  the  higher  powers  ;"  and  says  they  are  "  of 
God,"—*'  ordained  of  God," — "  the  ordinance  of  God," 
and  "  ministers  of  God ;"  and  requires  Christians  to  be 
subject  to  them  "  for  conscience'  sake,"  i.  e.  as  a  duty  to 
God. 

Follow  now  the  history  of  the  Roman  Empire.     See 


94  LECTURE    IV. 

how  it  was  rent  asunder  by  factions  and  revolutions 
from  one  century  to  another,  and  divided  and  subdivided 
into  a  great  number  of  smaller  kingdoms  or  states,  each 
one  having  its  own  ruler,  and  generally  on  the  ground 
of  hereditary  right.^ — Come  at  length  to  the  British  na- 
tion, where  the  same  principle  of  hereditary  power  was 
adopted.  But  what  changes,  what  revolutions,  what 
struggles  for  power,  what  wars  and  fightings  took  place. 
But  whoever  was  the  king,  and  however  he  came  to  be 
so,  he  was  "  the  minister  of  God,""  and  was  made  so  by 
the  arrangements  of  his  all-controlling  providence ;  and 
he  was  divinely  designated  to  his  office,  as  really,  though 
not  in  the  same  manner,  as  David  was.  You  finally 
reach  our  own  country,  where,  in  consequence  of  a 
great  insurrection  and  a  successful  war  against  the  Brit- 
ish Government,  to  which  we  had  for  a  long  time  been 
in  lawful  subjection,  a  revolution  was  effected,  and  we 
became  an  independent  Republic ;  and  casting  off  the 
British  authority,  we  established  a  government  and  elect- 
ed rulers  in  our  own  way.  But  our  Governours  and  Pre- 
sidents and  Judges  are  all  "  ministers  of  God  ;"  and  go- 
vernment in  our  Republican  form  is  as  much  a  divine 
institution,  as  in  the  Kingly  or  Imperial  form  ;  an  elec- 
tive Government,  as  much  as  a  hereditary  Government. 
Episcopalians  fully  recognize  this  principle,  and,  in  their 
37th  Article,  expressly  affirm  the  duty  of"  a  respectful 
obedience  to  the  civil  authority,  regularly  and  legitimate- 
ly constituted."  ,  They  do  not  mean  that  a  civil  authori- 
ty, in  order  to  be  legitimate,  must  be  monarchical,  or  he- 
reditary, or  must  be  constituted  in  any  one  particular 
way.  They  acknowledge  the  legitimate  authority  of  our 
Republican  Rulers,  just  as  they  are,  and  have  altered 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  95 

the  English  prayer  for  the  King  into  an  American  prayer 
for  the  President ;  and  in  all  respects  they  conduct  them- 
selves as  faithful  subjects  of  our  Republican  Government. 
But  if  our  Government  should  again  be  changed,  and 
should  go  back  to  what  it  was ;  if  by  some  strange  move- 
ments in  our  public  affairs,  it  should  come  lo  pass,  that 
the  King  of  Great  Britain  should  be  our  King,  and  we 
should  be  under  a  hereditary  Monarch,  and  a  House  of 
Lords  containing  the  Noblemen  and  the  Bishops,  and 
our  King  should  be  consecrated  to  his  office  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury ;  American  Episcopalians, 
though  born  Republicans,  would,  like  other  peaceable 
citizens,  readily  submit  to  that  Government,  though  it 
it  would  be  somewhat  new  to  them,  and  they  would  re- 
store the  Liturgy  to  its  original  form,  so  that  they  might 
offer  up  prayer  for  the  King  and  Queen  and  the  Royal 
Family,  and  the  Parliament.  And  if  after  a  while  there 
should  be  still  another  revolution,  and  another  Oliver 
Cromwell  should  come  to  be  established  as  our  chief  Ru- 
ler and  Protector ;  I  suppose  Episcopalians  would  still 
be  subject  to  "  the  powers  that  be,"  and  would  pray  for 
the  Lord  Protector,  however  much  he  might  be  like 
Oliver  Cromwell,  just  as  they  now  do  for  the  President. 
Episcopalians,  I  mean  to  say,  are  wise  and  prudent  men 
and  good  citizens,  and  hold  to  sound,  Bible-principles  in 
regard  to  civil  Government ; — which  is  as  truly  an  ordi- 
nance of  God,  and  is  as  expressly  declared  by  Scripture 
to  be  so,  as  the  gospel  ministry. 

In  this  way  I  think  we  may  get  a  just  idea  of  the  prin- 
ciple  of  succession, — succession  not  as  an  abstract  thing, 
but  as  a  reality,  a  matter  of  fact.  There  has  been  a  suc- 
cession of  Ilulers  in  the  different  nations  of  Europe,  how 


96  LECTUREIV. 

many  soever  may  have  been  the  interruptions  and  chan- 
ges in  the  order  of  that  succession.  So  in  these  United 
States.  Have  we  not,  from  the  beginning  of  the  settle- 
ments in  this  country,  had  a  succession  of  Rulers?  For  a 
long  time  our  Chief  Ruler  was  the  King  of  Great  Britain. 
George  the  Third  was  the  last.  He  was  the  Prede- 
cessor of  George  Washington.  There  was  indeed  a 
time  when  no  one  man  was  chief  Ruler  of  all  these 
States, — although  they  were  in  some  important  respects, 
under  the  authority  of  the  Old  Congress.  But  at  length 
the  Federal  Union  was  formed,  and  then  Washington 
became  our  Chief  Magistrate,  as  truly  as  George  the 
Third  had  been  before  him.  Accordingly,  as  Chief 
Ruler  of  all  these  States,  Washington  was  the  real  suc- 
cessor of  George  the  Third.  As  Chief  Ruhr  he  fol- 
lowed next  after  George  the  Third, — who  was  our  last 
Chief  Ruler  before  Washington.  Thus  these  American 
States  have  had  from  the  beginning  to  the  present  time, 
a  succession  of  Rulers, — a  real  succession,  though  not 
an  unvaried  succession,  and  not  an  unbroken  succession ; 
a  succession  of  Rulers  invested  with  their  office  in  dif- 
ferent ways,  but  all  "  ordained  of  God,"  and  all  to  be 
acknowledged  as  Ms  gift,  as  much  as  though  they  had 
been  called  to  their  oflice  as  Moses  or  David  was.  No 
man  in  our  Republic  can  be  President  or  Senator,  Gov- 
ernour  or  Judge,  unless  he  is  regularly  brought  into  office 
according  to  our  Republican  Constitution  and  Laws. 
But  when  he  is  thus  regularly  brought  into  office,  is  he 
not  a  lawful  ruler,  and  invested  with  a  just  authority? 
And  does  not  God  give  Rulers  in  this  way  as  truly  as  in 
any  other?  Is  God's  Providence  shut  up  to  oneway? 
Is  not  a  Republican   Government  founded  on  divine 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  97 

right,  as  much  as  an  hereditary  monarchy?  Is  it  a  fact, 
that  the  King  of  Great  Britain  or  any  of  the  Govern- 
ments of  Europe  stand  off  and  refuse  to  acknowledge 
our  government  and  to  have  fellowship  with  it,  and  deny 
the  validity  of  its  acts,  because  it  is  Republican  ?  And 
do  we  refuse  fellowship  with  the  governments  of  Europe, 
because  they  are  Monarchical  or  Imperial?  No.  Men 
have  sense  enough  to  manage  these  matters  properly  in 
civil  concerns.  Any  civil  officer  is  acknowledged  and 
respected  not  only  in  his  own  country,  hut  in  other  coun- 
tries, if  he  has  been  put  into  the  office  in  conformity 
with  the  laws  of  his  own  country,  how  much  soever  those 
laws  may  differ  from  the  laws  of  other  countries. 

Now  I  verily  think  that  Christian  Ministers  and 
churches  of  different  countries,  and  different  forms  of 
government,  should  have  as  much  good  sense,  and,  en- 
largedness  of  mind,  and  charity,  as  the  officers  and  mem- 
bers of  civil  communities.  The  different  denominations 
of  Christians  have  each  their  order,  their  rules  of  pro- 
ceeding, in  regard  to  the  formation  of  churches  and  the 
ordination  of  ministers, — all  of  them  alike  regarding  the 
church  and  the  ministry  as  divine  institutions.  Their 
rules  of  proceeding  may  not  be  perfectly  wise  and  pro- 
per, and  scriptural,  in  the  view  of  each  other,  or  in  their 
own  view.  But  they  all  have  order  o^  some  kind.  Now 
if  churches  or  ministers  have  the  essential  moral  qual- 
ifications prescribed  in  the  word  of  God,  and  conform  to 
the  rules  of  order  in  their  own  denomination ;  that  is,  if 
Richard  Cecil  and  John  Newton  and  their  churches 
conform  to  the  rules  of  the  Episcopal  denomination,  and 
Andrew  Fuller  and  Robert  Hall  and  their  churches  con- 
form to  the  rules  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  and  Tim- 
7 


98  LECTURE    IV. 

othy  Dwight  and  Edward  Payson  and  their  churches,  to 
the  rules  of  the  Congregational  denomination,  and  Sam- 
uel Davies  and  John  H.  Rice  and  their  churches,  to  the 
rules  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  and  Wilber 
Fisk  and  John  Summerfield  and  their  churches,  to  the 
rules  of  the  Methodist  denomination, — assuming  that 
these  denominations  do  all*  hold  the  essential  truths  and 
obey  the  essential  laws  of  the  gospel,  and  have  severally 
their  rules  of  order ; — then  I  say,  all  these  ministers  and 
churches  are  to  be  acknowledged  and  treated  by  each 
other  as  true  Christian  ministers  and  churches.  And  if 
any  one  stands  off  from  others  merely  because  they  differ 
from  him  in  outward  forms ;  does  he  not  contradict  the 
scripture  principle  which  he  acknowledges  relative  to  the 
divine  institution  of  civil  government?  Does  he  not  set 
up  outward  forms  above  inward  piety  and  charity  ; — for- 
getting that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  consisteth  not  in  meats 
and  drinks,  or  in  tithing  mint,  anise  and  cumin,  but  in 
righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ? — 
As  to  rules  of  order — I  would  insist  upon  them  as  strenu- 
ously as  any  man ; — not  indeed  exchmvehj  upon  the  or- 
der established  in  my  own  denomination  ;  but  upon  order 
in  soma  way,  and  its  appropriate  rules.  If  a  man  calls 
himself  a  Presbyterian  minister,  or  a  Baptist  minister,  or 
an  Episcopal  minister,  and  yet  has  not  conformed  to  the 
order  established  in  his  own  denomination,  and  has  not  a 
regular  and  honorable  standing  there  ;  I  cannot  receive 
him  in  the  character  he  assumes,  any  more  than  I  can  re- 
ceive one  as  a  Congregational  minister,  if  he  despises 
or  neglects  Congregational  order.  Congregationalists  as 
well  as  other  non-Episcopal  denominations  have  rules  of 
order — not  Episcopal  rules — but  rules  which  are  intend" 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  99 

ed  and  in  some  measure  adapted  to  secure  good  order. 
Our  rules  may  need  mending,  as  much  as  the  Episcopal 
rules  do; — if  you  please,  even  more.  Still  they  are 
rules.  And  good  order  is  promoted  more  by  a  strict 
observance  oi  imperfect  rules,  than  by  a  negligent,  par- 
tial observance  of  those  which  are  more  perfect.  Let  us 
then  be  always  on  the  side  o^  the.  principle  of  order,  not, 
I  say,  in  any  one  form  exclusively, — this  would  be  illib- 
eral and  narrow, — but  in  the  several  forms  in  which  it  is 
found  among  good  men.  Let  us  stand  up,  firmly  and 
honorably,  without  bigotry  or  party  spirit,  as  zealously 
in  behalf  of  our  brethren  of  other  names,  as  in  our  own 
behalf,  for  the  principle  of  order  ;  endeavouring,  with  a 
noble  liberality,  to  promote  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
every  part  of  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ.  Thus  let 
us  aim  to  feel  and  act,  in  some  humble  measure,  as  He 
does,  who  is  Head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  and 
who  looks  upon  all  the  branches  of  it  with  equal  kind- 
ness, and  upon  all  that  is  holy  in  his  redeemed  people 
of  whatever  name,  with  equal  complacency. 

I  now  come  to  another  view  of  the  subject  which  I 
have  undertaken  to  discuss.  There  are  Episcopalians  in 
large  numbers,  and  of  great  excellence  of  character,  who 
discard  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical  succession  in  the  pe- 
culiar and  exclusive  sense  in  which  it  is  held  by  the  High 
Church  party,  and  who  adopt  the  Episcopal  scheme  of 
church  polity  on  the  ground  o{  expediency.  They  think 
that  the  particular  form  of  Church  Government,  not  be- 
ing marked  out  by  the  Scriptures,  is  to  be  determined 
by  Christians  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  sober  judg- 
ment, and  discretion.     It  is  the  opinion  of  those  I  refer 


100  LECTUREIV. 

to,  that  the  Episcopal  plan  is  consistent  with  Scripture, 
and  taken  as  a  whole  is  preferable  to  any  other  plan  ; — 
that  it  avoids  many  evils  to  which  other  ecclesiastical 
modes  are  subject,  and  secures  many  advantages  of 
which  they  are  deprived. 

I  shall  now,  therefore,  go  into  an  inquiry  somewhat 
particular,  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  our  adopting 
the  Episcopal  system.  The  particular  form  of  worship 
and  of  government  in  the  Episcopal  church,  and  in  other 
churches,  is  now  to  be  considered  as  a  human  arrange- 
ment.  And,  while  we  hold  it  to  be  proper  for  Episcopa- 
lians, so  long  as  they  continue  in  the  Episcopal  church, 
to  conform  to  its  rules, — and  while  we  consider  it  to  be 
our  sacred  duty  to  submit  reverently  and  devoutly  to 
whatever  is  enjoined  upon  us  by  divine  authority ;  we 
feel  at  liberty  to  call  in  question  whatever  is  of  human 
origin,  and  to  receive  or  reject  it,  according  as  we  find 
reasons  for  or  against  it.  The  simple  question,  there- 
fore, which  we  are  now  to  consider,  is,  whether  it  is  ex- 
pedient for  us,  who  are  connected  with  other  denomina- 
tions of  Christians,  to  change  our  relations,  and  adopt 
the  Episcopal  scheme.  We  are  all  at  liberty  to  do  this, 
if  we  judge  best.  The  doors  of  the  Episcopal  church 
are  open,  and  her  Bishops  and  Priests  are  ready  to  re- 
ceive us,  and  to  grant  us  her  privileges  and  blessings. 
Let  us  then  fairly  examine  the  subject  on  the  ground  now 
proposed.  The  Episcopal  form  of  worship  and  church 
government,  as  it  exists  in  America,  is,  in  my  judgment, 
better  than  what  is  found  elsewhere.  Let  this  form  of 
Episcopacy  be  the  subject  of  our  careful  consideration. 
It  is,  I  suppose,  in  this  form,  if  in  any,  that  we  are  to 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  101 

fall  in  with  it ; — unless  some  of  us  should  chance  to  feel 
its  attractions  in  its  Romish  form. 

Here  we  are  to  look  at  the  whole  state  of  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  its  best  form, — its  ministers,  its  members, 
its  worship,  its  ordinances,  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  eve- 
rything which  makes  a  part  of  the  system  now  in  opera- 
tion. It  is  a  subject  of  serious  moment.  In  the  inves- 
tigation of  it,  I  would  cherish  a  hearty  veneration  and 
love  for  whatever  is  stamped  with  truth  and  dignity  and 
excellence  in  the  Episcopal  church.  At  the  same  time 
I  shall  look  upon  myself  as  having  a  perfect  right,  as 
every  other  man  has,  to  make  inquiries,  and  to  think,  and 
examine,  and  deliberate,  and  judge  for  myself,  provided 
I  do  it  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  with  charity  towards  my 
fellow  men.  And  I  will  thank  and  honor  any  man,  who 
will  go  into  a  similar  examination  of  the  system  which  I 
have  adopted,  and  will  faithfully  point  out  its  deficiencies 
and  its  errors. 

In  the  first  place,  I  turn  my  attention  to  what  is  a  pro- 
minent object  in  the  Episcopal  church,  as  it  is  in  every 
other  church, — I  mean  its  ministers.  And  in  endeavour- 
ing to  satisfy  myself  whether  that  church  has  a  fair  title 
to  be  preferred  before  churches  under  other  forms,  I  am 
under  the  necessity  of  inquiring,  not  whether  Episcopal 
ministers  at  large  are  good  men  and  faithful  ministers, 
but  whether  they  are  better  than  others.  If,  as  the  claim 
of  some  is,  they  are  God's  true  ministers,  specially  and 
exclusively ; — if  at  their  ordination,  they  do  in  fact, 
through  the  ministration  of  the  Bishop,  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  a  sense  in  which  ministers  who  are  ordained  in 
other  forms,  do  not  receive  that  heavenly  gift ;  it  is  cer- 
tainly reasonable  to  expect,  that  they  will  excel  other 


102 


LECTURE    IV. 


ministers  in  those  intellectual  and  moral  excellencies 
which  the  sacred  office  requires,  and  in  the  fidelity  and 
success  of  their  labors  in  that  office.  Otherwise,  their 
standing  in  that  peculiar  relation  to  God,  and  their  being 
thus  endued  with  the  ineffable  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
would  seem  to  be  of  no  value.  Are  then  the  Episcopal 
clergy,  as  a  body,  possessed  of  higher  qualifications  than 
other  ministers  ?  Do  they  more  completely  sustain  the 
character  of  a  bishop  or  elder,  as  drawn  by  an  Apostle? 
Are  they  more  diligent  and  faithful  in  the  duties  of  their 
calling,  or  more  fervent  in  prayer?  Have  they  a  more 
visible  likeness  to  him  who  went  about  doing  good,  and 
who  was  meek  and  lowly  in  heart?  Are  they  more 
sound  in  the  faith  ?  Do  they  contend  more  earnestly  for 
the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  ?  Do  they  more 
earnestly  preach  Christ  crucified,  and  more  fully  make 
known  his  unsearchable  riches  ?  Do  they  exhibit  more 
zeal  to  spread  the  word  of  God,  to  evangelize  the  hea- 
then, and  convert  the  world?  Or  do  they  make  greater 
efforts  and  sacrifices  to  promote  good  institutions  at 
home,  and  to  advance  the  cause  of  learning  and  morali- 
ty ?  For  the  last  fifty,  or  the  last  hundred  or  two  hun- 
dred years,  have  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  our  country 
been  superior,  in  any  of  the  abovementioned  respects,  to 
Congregational  or  Presbyterian  ministers  ?  Cast  your 
eye  over  Massachusetts  and  other  parts  of  New  England 
from  its  first  settlement  to  the  present  time,  and  compare 
the  three  orders  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  with  Congrega- 
tional ministers,  and  see  whether  the  former  have  pos- 
sessed higher  ministerial  excellencies,  than  the  latter ; 
or  whether  they  have  enjoyed  more  visible  tokens  of  the 
divine  approbation  ;  or  whether  the  substantial  interests 


CHURCH     GOVERNMENT.  103^ 

of  religion  have  been  more  promoted  by  their  labors  ?  I 
do  not  by  any  means  undervalue  the  worth  of  their  char- 
acters, or  the  usefulness  of  their  labors.  I  only  ask 
whether  they  have  been  superior  to  others.  And  then, 
in  conclusion,  I  ask,  whether,  in  this  respect,  we  have 
any  substantial  reason  to  change  our  ground  ;  and  whe- 
ther, if  we  should  change,  and  go  over  to  Episcopalians, 
we  should  have  a  prospect  of  being  connected  with  a 
better  company  of  ministerial  brethren. 

Pass  then  from  the  ministry  to  the  churches,  and, 
keeping  in  mind  that  churches,  as  well  as  individuals, 
are  known  by  their  fruits, — inquire,  whether  those  of 
the  Episcopal  order  are  entitled  to  more  confidence  and 
honor,  than  those  of  other  denominations.  Do  the  mem- 
bers of  Episcopal  churches  exhibit  more  clear  and  satis- 
factory evidence  of  piety  ?  Are  higher  qualifications  re- 
quired of  persons  who  are  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of 
the  church  and  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper?  Do 
Episcopal  churches  maintain  a  more  vigilant  inspection, 
and  more  faithful  discipline  over  their  members  ?  Do 
they  show  a  more  devout  regard  to  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, and  do  they  give  a  more  constant  and  reverent  at- 
tendance on  public  worship  ?  Have  professors  of  religion 
among  them  less  of  a  worldly  spirit,  than  others  ?  Are 
they  less  devoted  to  fashion  and  vain  amusements  1  Have 
they  a  higher  degree  of  domestic  and  personal  godliness? 
Go  from  church  to  church,  and  from  house  to  house, 
and  from  closet  to  closet,  and  see  whether  you  find  more 
abundant  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  more  of  pure  and  undefiled 
religion  ? 

Now  if  neither  ministers,  nor  churches,  nor  individual 
Christians  of  the  Episcopal  denomination,  however  excel- 


104  LECTURE    IV. 

lent  they  may  be,  are  found  to  be  no  more  excellent  than 
those  of  other  denominations  ; — if  Prelacy,  after  time  for 
a  fair  trial,  appears  to  have  contributed  nothing  above 
other  forms  of  church  government,  to  the  spiritual  bene- 
fit of  ministers  or  churches,  or  private  Christians  ;  then, 
in  these  respects,  there  seems  to  be  no  valid  reason,  why 
we  should  give  up  the  Ecclesiastical  system  which  was 
held  by  our  Puritan  Fathers,  and  which  we  think  existed 
in  the  churches  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  adopt 
the  system  of  Prelacy.  If,  generally,  the  government  of 
the  church  by  Diocesan  Bishops  has  been  attended  with 
no  obvious  benefits  to  any  class  of  men,  above  other 
forms  of  government ;  then,  so  far  as  the  principle  of  ex- 
pediency  is  concerned,  what  cause  have  we  to  give  the 
preference  to  the  Episcopal  form  ?  And  what  shall  we 
say  of  those  Episcopalians,  who  maintain,  that  their 
church  is  the  only  true  church  of  Christ,  and  that  their 
ministers  are  the  only  ministers  who  have  received  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  qualify  them  for  their  office, 
and  that  their  ordinances  are  the  only  ordinances  which 
are  valid,  or  which  can  secure  the  blessing  of  God ;  while 
yet  there  is  seen  among  them  no  degree  of  spiritual 
health,  or  spiritual  activity,  above  what  is  seen  among 
those,  who,  according  to  their  ideas,  have  no  share  in 
these  invaluable  and  indispensable  blessings  ?  I  cannot 
but  ask,  why  we  should  go  over  to  another  denomination, 
to  obtain  benefits,  which  after  all  prove  to  be  no  bene- 
fits ? 

I  have,  you  see,  begun  to  tell  you  frankly  what  my 
way  of  thinking  is  on  the  general  subject  before  us  in 
respect  to  expediency.  But  I  cannot  stop  here.  Jus- 
tice to  the  Puritan  Fathers  of  New  England,  and  to 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  105 

the  Founders  of  this  Seminary,  and  to  the  great  majority 
of  Protestant  Christians,  and  to  my  own  deliberate  con- 
victions, requires  me  to  say,  not  only  that  I  see  no  rea- 
sons in  favor  of  Episcopacy  in  comparison  with  other 
Ecclesiastical  forms,  but  various  reasons  against  it. 
These  reasons  I  shall  now  lay  before  you. 

I  have  already  endeavoured  to  show,  that  Prelacy  is  a 
departure  from  the  Apostolic  institution, — a  departure 
without  sufficient  reasons,  and,  on  the  whole,  without 
favorable  results.  I  now  allege,  as  my  first  objection 
against  Prelacy  on  the  particular  ground  of  exptcliency ^ 
that  it  introduces  into  the  Christian  church  a  principle 
of  hurtful  tendency  ;  namely,  a  distinction  in  regard  to 
office  and  rank  among  the  ministers  of  Christ.  Were 
this  distinction  of  divine  authority,  we  should  be  under 
obligation  quietly  to  submit  to  it,  and  to  confide  in  that 
divine  wisdom  which  appointed  it.  But  being,  as  I  ap- 
prehend, a  human  invention,  an  ordinance  of  man,  we 
are  not  only  permitted  but  bound  in  duty  to  inquire, 
whether  the  distinction  is  of  such  a  nature  and  tendency, 
as  to  justify  us  in  adopting  it.  Now  there  is  evidently 
no  foundation  for  this  distinction  in  the  characters  or 
qualifications  of  gospel  ministers.  Those  who  are  made 
Bishops  are  not  superior  to  all  Presbyters.  The  eleva- 
tion of  some  above  others  is  not  grounded  on  their  supe- 
rior qualifications.  There  would  be  a  Bishop,  though 
no  one  could  be  chosen,  who  was  superior  to  common 
Presbyters.  Inquire  then  whether  there  is  any  reason 
for  the  distinction,  in  the  nature  of  the  work  to  be  done? 
I  think  not.  For  all,  if  properly  qualified,  are  able  to 
preach  the  gospel,  administer  the  ordinances,  and  pre- 
side in  the  church  ; — Presbyters   as  well  as  those  who 


106  LECTURE    IV. 

are  called  Bishops.  And  as  to  the  work  of  ordaining ; — 
why  is  not  a  Presbytery,  that  is,  a  body  of  Presbyters,  as 
competent  to  set  apart  others  to  the  same  office  by  prayer 
and  the  laying  on  of  hands,  as  a  Bishop  is  ?  Now  as 
this  distinction  is  made  without  any  obvious  reason, — as 
it  is  not  required  by  the  nature  of  the  work  to  be  done, 
and  so  is  arbitrary ;  it  tends,  as  every  such  distinction 
does,  to  beget  pride  and  self-complacency  in  those  who 
are  raised  to  the  superior  rank.  Some  of  the  Apostles, 
with  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus  before  their  eyes,  had 
ambition  enough  in  their  hearts  to  aspire  after  a  higher 
office,  than  others  were  to  occupy.  But  Jesus  told  them, 
and  their  fellow  Apostles,  that  there  was  no  such  office  in 
his  kingdom ; — that  they  were  all  brethren.  And  why 
should  we  create  an  office,  which  is  suited  to  be  an  ob- 
ject of  desire  to  aspiring  minds  ?  Is  there  not  as  much 
unhallowed  ambition  latent  in  the  hearts  of  ministers  at 
the  present  day,  as  there  was  in  the  hearts  of  John  and 
James?  And  is  it  worth  the  while,  unnecessarily  to 
create  a  place  of  distinction,  which  will  be  likely  to  ex- 
cite that  unhallowed  principle  to  a  perilous  activity  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  So  far  as  one  portion  of  the  cler- 
gy are,  in  point  of  rank  and  power,  raised  above  the 
proper  level,  the  other  part  are  sunk  below  it.  This 
follows  of  course.  And  it  is  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  that 
the  order  of  things  in  the  Episcopal  Church  thrusts  the 
inferior  clergy  down  from  their  proper  station,  deprives 
them  of  a  part  of  their  just  rights,  and  hinders  them 
from  performing  a  part  of  the  duties  incumbent  upon 
all  the  ministers  of  Christ.  According  to  the  word  of 
God,  they  are  all  7^ukrs  in  the  Church,  under  Christ, 
the  Supreme  Ruler.     Their  being  under  him  is  no  de- 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  107 

gradation,  but  an  honor; — no  loss  of  rights,  but  a  matter 
of  truth  and  justice,  yea,  an  unspeakable  privilege.  But 
for  them  to  be  subjected  to  an  unnecessary  human  au- 
thority is  a  loss  of  just  rights,  and  a  hinderance  to  the 
performance  of  important  duties ;  and  it  is  a  degrada- 
tion. It  is  the  right  and  duty  of  every  gospel  minister, 
not  only  to  administer  Baptism,  but  to  admit  persons  to 
the  communion  of  the  church  and  to  the  participation 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  if  Confirmation  is  a  Scrip- 
tural rite,  and  is  ordinarily  to  precede  or  accompany  ad- 
mission to  these  privileges ;  then  Confirmation  is  a  part 
of  the  duty  belonging  to  every  minister.  And  to  take  it 
out  of  the  hands  of  common  Pastors,  and  put  it  into  the 
hands  of  a  Prelate,  is  as  arbitrary  and  unjust,  as  it  would 
be  to  put  the  right  of  baptizing  exclusively  into  his 
hands.  What  is  there  in  the  business  of  Conjirmingf 
as  set  forth  in  the  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  which  is 
more  solemn,  or  more  important,  or  of  more  difficult 
performance,  than  Baptism?  And  yet,  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  while  a  Presbyter  baptizes  children,  and  adult 
believers,  he  cannot  Confirm  them.  This  must  be  done 
by  a  Bishop.  Why  so?  In  the  rite  of  Confirmation, 
persons  do  but  recognize  and  renew  the  obligations  im- 
plied in  Baptism.  If  either  is  the  more  important,  sure- 
ly it  is  Baptism.  And  any  one  would  naturally  think 
that,  if  either  of  them  is  to  be  deemed  of  superior  im- 
portance, and,  on  that  account,  to  be  assigned  exclusive- 
ly to  the  Bishop,  it  must  be  Baptism,  which  is  plainly  a 
divine  institution,  rather  than  Confirmation,  which  looks 
very  much  like  a  human  institution.  And  when  I  com- 
pare Confirmation  with  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  find  equal, 
if  not  superior  reason  to  regard  the  latter  as  the  more 


108  LECTUREIV. 

solemn  and  important.  Why  then  is  an  ordinary  Pastor 
who  is  allowed  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper,  forbid- 
den to  administer  the  rite  of  Confirmation?  If  the  less 
important  duty  is  assigned  exclusively  to  the  Bishop ; 
why  not  the  more  important?  Why  is  it  not  made  the 
duty  of  the  Bishop,  and  of  him  only,  to  administer  the 
Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper?  And 
for  the  same  reason,  why  should  he  not  do  all  the  preach- 
ing too,  as  this  is  vastly  more  important  and  difficult, 
than  the  work  of  Confirmation?  In  regard  then  to 
Confirmation,  is  there  not  in  the  Episcopal  system,  an 
appearance  of  something  which  is  unreasonable  and  ar- 
bitrary, and,  to  common  ministers,  degrading?  The 
same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  right  and  the  duty  of 
consecrating  men  to  the  office  of  ministers,  by  prayer 
and  the  imposition  of  hands ; — a  transaction  to  which 
Presbyters  are  as  competent  as  Bishops.  We  are  now 
looking  at  these  matters  as  being  referred  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  Christians,  and  to  be  disposed  of  on  the 
ground  of  expediency.  And  my  position  is,  that,  so  far 
as  the  Episcopal  system  deprives  Presbyters  of  any 
rights  which  naturally  pertain  to  their  office,  such  as 
the  right  of  Confirming  and  Ordaining,  and  so  far  as  it 
hinders  them  from  the  performance  of  any  ministerial 
duties,  to  which  they  are  manifestly  competent ;  it  de- 
grades them  in  the  public  estimation,  and,  by  an  un- 
necessary and  arbitrary  arrangement,  curtails  their  sal- 
utary influence  and  their  usefulness.  I  shall  feel  myself 
justified  in  making  these  allegations,  until  it  shall  be 
shown,  that  the  assignment  of  duties  referred  to,  is 
founded  on  sufficient  reasons,  and  is  dictated  by  sound 
judgment  and  discretion.     Until  that  is  done,  my  objec- 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  109 

tion  against  Episcopacy,  as  stated  above,  remains  in  all 
its  force.  And  every  time  a  Bishop  goes  about  among 
the  churches,  claiming  and  exercising  the  exclusive  right 
of  Confirming  and  Ordaining,  I  shall  have  the  disagree- 
able impression,  that  he  goes,  not  simply  to  advise,  as- 
sist and  encourage  common  Pastors  in  their  holy  calling, 
but  to  interfere  with  some  of  their  appropriate  rights 
and  duties,  as  ministers  of  Christ.  The  fault,  however, 
is  not  to  be  charged  to  the  Episcopal  Bishop,  but  to  the 
Episcopal  system. 

It  is,  in  my  view,  a  serious  objection  against  the  sys- 
tem of  Prelacy,  that  it  hinders  the  members  of  the  church 
from  performing  an  important  part  of  their  duty  as 
Christians.  We  have  seen  that  it  deprives  them  of  all 
direct  agency  in  the  discipline  of  offenders.  In  this  way, 
it  tends  to  prevent  them  from  feeling  the  interest  which 
they  ought  to  feel  in  the  character  and  conduct  of  each 
other,  and,  of  course,  from  exercising  the  watchful  care 
over  each  other,  which  is  required  as  a  sacred  duty.  To 
induce  men  to  do  such  a  duty,  and  to  do  it  faithfully,  it 
is  important  to  take  away  all  hinderances,  and  to  make 
them  feel  the  force  of  a  direct  responsibility.  Any  sin- 
cere Christian  will  be  likely  to  watch  over  his  brethren 
for  their  good,  and  to  reprove  them  when  the  case  re- 
quires, and  labor  for  their  amendment,  if  it  is  understood, 
that  this  is  a  duty  which  properly  belongs  to  him,  and 
that  his  brethren  are,  in  an  important  sense,  accountable 
to  him.  But  how  can  we  expect  that  individual  Chris- 
tians will  faithfully  watch  over  and  reprove  one  another, 
as  required  by  the  precepts  of  Scripture,  and  that  the 
business  of  real  superintendence  and  discipline  will  be 
faithfully  accomplished,  if  it  all  devolves  on  a  single  man, 


110 


LECTURE    IV. 


and  that  man  at  a  distance,  occupied  with  a  multitude 
of  other  cares,  and  not  likely  to  be  sufficiently  acquaint- 
ed with  the  persons  concerned  to  be  a  suitable  judge  ? 
I  think  there  ought  at  least  to  be  something  which  fairly 
answers  to  trial  by  jury,  which  in  Great  Britain  and 
America  is  deemed  so  indispensable  to  the  security  of 
individual  rights,  and  the  exercise  of  justice.     Let  every 
private  member  of  the  church  be  tried  and  judged  either 
by  his  brethren  regularly  assembled  as  a  judicial  body, 
or  if  the  brethren  think  best,   by  their  represent ativeSy 
chosen  and  authorized  to  act  for  them, — as  is  done  in 
the  Presbyterian  church.     This  last  is  truly  a  Republi- 
can proceeding  ;  and  it  recognizes  the  principle,  that  it 
is  the  right  and   duty  of  the  members  of  the  church  to 
attend  to  the  business  of  discipline,  although  they  choose 
to  do  it,  as  the  members  of  our  civil  communities  do,  by 
or  through  their  representatives,  to  whom  they  delegate 
the  necessary  power.    Where  the  members  of  the  church 
are  possessed  of  intelligence  and  judgment,  qualifying 
them  to  have  a  direct,  personal  agency  in  managing  the 
discipline  of  the  church,  the  Congregational  plan  is,  in 
my  opinion,  preferable,  and  more  exactly  in  accordance 
with  the  primitive  practice.    But  still,  as  in  civil  society, 
no  one  can  complain,  if  he  is  tried  by  his  peers,  those 
peers  being  chosen  in  a  just  and  orderly  manner ;  so  in 
the  church,  substantial  and  equal  justice  may  be  secur- 
ed, if  the  business  of  discipline  is  voluntarily  committed 
by  the  members  to  a  proper  number  of  representatives ^ 
constituting  .a  body  in  the  church  with  definite,  but  de- 
legated power  in  the  affairs  of  discipline.     Now  either 
the  Congregational  or  Presbyterian  system  appears  to 
me  altogether  preferable  to  the  Episcopal  system,  accord- 


CHURCH    GOVERNMENT.  Ill 

ing  to  which  the  Bishop  is  entrusted  with  the  exercise  of 
a  superintendence  and  discipline  which  is  far  too  exten- 
sive for  any  single  man,  and  for  which  no  man  can  be 
supposed  to  possess  the  necessary  knowledge  and  the  ne- 
cessary executive  ability.  And,  if  I  mistake  not,  all  ex- 
perience will  show,  that  wherever  Prelacy  prevails,  that 
is,  wherever  the  business  of  discipline  is  taken  out  of  the 
hands  o^  the  churches,  and  committed  to  the  hands  of  a 
single  man,  who  is  to  take  care  of  a  large  number  of 
churches,  spread  over  a  large  extent  of  country  ;  the 
duty  will  not  and  cannot  be  faithfully  performed.  The 
system  in  this  respect  is  encumbered  with  great  disad- 
vantages, and  it  imposes  upon  the  Bishop  an  oppressive 
and  impracticable  duty. 


LECTURE    V 


THE  LITURGY. 

My  next  objection  to  the  Episcopal  scheme  is,  that  it 
imposes  iinscriptural  and  hurdcnsome  restrictions  upon  all 
the  clergy — upon  Bishops  as  well  as  Presbyters  and 
Deacons.  The  Bible  makes  it  the  duty  of  ministers  to 
offer  up  prayer  in  public  assemblies  ;  but  it  does  not  pre- 
scribe the  form  of  their  prayers ;  and  it  nowhere  gives 
the  right  to  do  this  to  any  man,  or  any  body  of  men.  If 
ministers  are,  in  any  good  measure,  qualified  for  their 
office,  they  are  qualified  to  conduct  the  devotions  of  the 
church.  And  their  prayers  should  be  such  as  the  spirit 
of  piety  in  them  suggests,  and  such  as  are  suited  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  congregation.  And  why  should 
they  not  be  trusted  with  this  part  of  the  service  of  the 
Sanctuary,  as  well  as  with  other  parts  1  Why  should 
they  be  absolutely  required  to  pray  in  one  particular 
form,  and  forbidden  to  vary  one  iota  from  it  ?  Who  on 
earth  has  a  right  to  tell  the  ministers  of  Christ  the  very 
thoughts  they  shall  think,  and  the  very  words  they  shall 
speak  in  their  supplications  and  confessions  and  thanks- 
givings to  God  on  every  occasion  ?  Were  it  not  for  the 
influence  of  custom,  what  gospel  minister  at  the  present 
day  would  yield  this  right  to  any  one  1  Is  not  a  well 
qualified  minister, — is  not  a  Bishop — is  not  an  Archbish- 
8 


114  LECTURE    V. 

op  as  able  to  make  a  prayer,  as  others  are  to  make  it  for 
him, — and  others  who  lived  hundreds  of  years  ago,  in 
times  of  comparative  ignorance  1  Bishops  are,  it  is  said, 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  stand  up  in  their  place. 
And  did  the  Apostles  read  written  forms  of  prayer  ? — It 
is  an  unwarrantable  and  hurtful  restriction.  And  I  can- 
not but  think,  that  many  worthy  ministers  in  the  Episco- 
pal church  feel  it  to  be  so.  It  deprives  them  of  the  lib- 
erty wherewith  Christ  has  made  them  free.  Suppose  an 
Episcopal  Priest  or  Bishop,  in  accordance  with  the  feel- 
ings of  all  others,  wishes  to  make  some  uncommon  event, 
not  mentioned  in  the  Liturgy,  a  particular  subject  of 
public  prayer.  He  must  not  do  it.  His  prayer  is  in  his 
Book,  and  he  must  read  it  just  as  it  is,  without  addition 
or  alteration, — how  much  soever  he  may  desire  to  pray, 
and  how  much  soever  others  may  desire  that  he  would 
pray,  in  a  different  manner.  Again.  Suppose  a  scene 
occurs,  such  as  has  frequently  occurred,  and  such  as  we 
hope  will  occur  still  more  frequently ; — suppose  that  he 
who  is  ministering  in  the  Sanctuary,  sees  evident  signs 
of  awakened  and  solemn  attention,  deep  anxiety,  and 
tenderness  of  heart  through  the  assembly  before  him,  and 
he  well  knows  that  many  are  ready  to  ask,  what  shall  I 
do  to  be  saved,  and  his  own  heart  is  full  of  love  and  pity 
for  lost  souls,  and  strong  desires  for  their  salvation,  and 
he  longs  to  cry  to  God  in  their  behalf  in  a  manner  adapt- 
ed to  their  state,  and  to  his  own  devout  emotions.  What 
shall  he  do?  Why,  he  can  only  read  a  prayer,  written 
many  hundreds  of  years  ago, — a  prayer  very  good  for 
some  other  occasions,  but  not  for  this.  Now,  were  I  an 
Episcopal  minister,  I  do  not  say,  were  I  a  Bishop,  but 
were  I  a  minister  of  the  lowest  rank,  and  found  myself 


THE    LITURGY.  115 

in  such  circumstances,  I  would  instantly  forget  that  I 
was  under  authority  to  any  one,  but  to  my  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour, Jesus  Christ, — I  would  cast  off  my  bondage,  and 
would  pour  out  the  fulness  of  my  heart  in  prayer  to  God, 
just  as  ministers  of  other  denominations  do. 

Reading  public  prayers  from  a  Book  may,  I  admit,  be 
advisable  and  useful,  when  ministers  have  but  little  cul- 
tivation of  mind  and  are  very  imperfectly  prepared  for 
their  office.  But  if  ministers  are  possessed  of  the  requi- 
site qualifications,  no  human  being  has  a  rightful  author- 
ity to  dictate  to  them  how  they  shall  pray  ;  nor  can  they 
rightfully  submit  to  such  dictation,  from  whomsoever  it 
may  come.  I  know  not  how  it  is  in  the  Episcopal  church 
in  this  country;  but  in  the  church  of  England,  when 
any  new  and  remarkable  event  takes  place,  suitable  to 
be  mentioned  in  public  prayer ;  it  is  said,  that  all  the 
clergy,  amounting  to  so  many  thousands,  and  all  the 
Bishops  too,  are  silent,  not  presuming  to  utter  a  word  on 
the  occasion,  till  the  Archbishop, — perhaps  in  compli- 
ance with  the  petition  of  the  Bishops  and  clergy  under 
him, — composes  and  publishes  a  prayer  for  them  to  read. 
Now,  T  ask,  what  Apostle,  with  all  his  authority  and  in- 
spiration, ever  undertook  anything  like  this?  It  is  a 
palpable  innovation  upon  Apostolical  and  Primitive  prac- 
tice ; — a  gross  infringement  of  the  liberty  and  the  duty 
of  the  Ambassadors  of  Christ. — Leading-strings  for  chil- 
dren, not  for  men. — A  prayer-book  for  unqualified,  ig- 
norant ministers,  not  for  ministers  of  cultivated  minds, 
especially  those  of  superior  gifts. 

Dr.  Dick,  in  his  Lectures  on  Theology,  objects  to 
forms  of  prayer  on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  warrant- 
ed by  Scripture,  nor  even  sanctioned  by  the  example  of 


,l*f6  LECTURE     V. 

the  Primitive  Church.  He  thinks  it  more  consonant  to 
common  sense,  as  well  as  to  religion,  that  a  Christian 
should  be  allowed  to  express  the  feelings  and  desires 
which  spontaneously  arise  in  his  own  mind,  than  that  he 
should  be  required  to  conform  to  a  standard  prepared  by 
another.  "  Would  it  not  be  preposterous,"  he  says,  "  to 
confine  a  child  to  a  collection  of  written  requests,  from 
which  he  was  never  to  deviate  in  his  addresses  to  his  fa- 
ther ?"  He  further  objects  to  forms,  because  they  can- 
not be  adapted  to  the  ever  varying  circumstances  of 
God's  people,  and  must  therefore  prove  a  painful  and  in- 
jurious restraint  upon  the  liberty  of  the  spirit  which  the 
word  of  God  encourages  us  to  exercise. — He  thinks  the 
Liturgy  of  the  Episcopal  church  is  chargeable  with  un- 
necessarily repeating  the  same  petitions,  and  with  joining 
together  those  which  have  no  kind  of  connection,  "  A 
serious  objection,"  he  says,  "  is  the  shortness  of  the  pray- 
ers. The  longest  are  ended  almost  before  you  have  time 
to  bring  your  mind  into  a  proper  frame  for  joining  in  it; 
and  some  of  them,  consisting  of  a  single  sentence,  are 
finished  almost  as  soon  as  they  are  begun.  Besides  the 
constant  interruption  which  is  thus  given  to  devotional 
feelings,  there  is  a  want  of  dignity  and  of  sense  in  a  col- 
lection of  what  may  be  called  shreds  or  fragments  of 
prayers.  The  Lord's  Prayer  is  sometimes  introduced 
where  no  person  can  perceive  any  reason  for  using  it, 
and  is  brought  forward  so  often  in  the  course  of  the  same 
service,  as  to  have  the  appearance  of  vain  repetition." 

As  I  have  now  undertaken  to  inquire  a  little  into  the 
reason  of  things,  I  would  ask  why  the  Episcopal  church, 
which  prescribes  prayers  for  ministers,  does  not  also 
prescribe  their  sermons?     It  may  be  said,  that  this  was 


THE    LITURGY.  117 

actually  done ;  that  two  volumes  of  Homilies,  i.  e.  Ser- 
mons, were  early  written  and  published,  and  ordered  to 
be  read  by  the  clergy  in  the  Church ;  sermons  suited  to 
the  circumstances  and  wants  of  the  people.  I  suppose- 
however  that  even  then,  those  ministers  who  were  com- 
petent to  write  edifying  discourses,  had  liberty  to  do  it. 
This  was  all  well.  And  those  who  were  competent  to 
make  edifying  prar/crs,  should  have  had  liberty  to  do  this 
also.  But  why  is  not  the  use  of  Homilies  continued,  as ' 
much  as  the  use  of  written  prayers?  You  may  say,  that 
ministers  now  are  well  educated,  and  are  qualified  to 
make  their  own  sermons.  This  I  admit.  And  then  the 
question  returns,  are  they  not  also  qualified  to  make 
their  own  prayers  ?  If  it  is  safe  and  proper  to  trust  min- 
isters, in  the  exercise  of  their  own  cultivated  faculties,  to 
write  and  deliver,  and  even  to  preach  extemporaneously, 
sermons  sufficient  to  cover  the  whole  ground  of  Christian 
doctrine  and  duty  ;  why  is  it  not  safe  and  proper  to  trust 
them,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  intelligence  and  piety, 
to  offer  up  extemporaneous  or  premeditated  prayers? 
Who  can  see  any  reason  for  the  difference  ?  If  the  Epis- 
copal church  prescribes  the  whole  course  of  public  devo- 
tions, it  should,  to  be  consistent,  prescribe  the  whole 
course  of  public  instructions,  and  Bishops,  as  well  as  the 
inferior  clergy,  should  use  the  Book  of  Homilies,  as  they 
now  use  the  Book  of  common  prayer.  If  it  is  said,  that 
the  old  Homilies,  though  very  edifying  and  acceptable 
when  they  were  composed,  are  in  many  respects  unfit  to 
be  delivered  to  a  modern  assembly, — (which  is  verily  the 
case;)  then  why  do  not  the  Bishops,  or  one  of  them  con- 
stituted an  Archbishop,  write  and  publish  new  Homilies, 


Its 


LECTURE    V 


extending  over  the  whole  system  of  doctrinal  and  practi- 
cal religion  ? 

I  find  that  the  Episcopal  church  "  suspends  the  order 
for  the  reading  of  the  Homilies  in  churches,  until  a  re- 
vision of  them  may  be  conveniently  made  for  the  clear- 
ing of  them  from  obsolete  words  and  phrases,  and  from 
the  local  references."  See  note  to  Art.  35.  Why  has 
not  some  proper  measure  been  taken  for  such  a  revision  ? 
Why  leave  the  clergy  so  long  to  preach  without  the  help 
of  Homilies?  And  if  the  reading  of  Homilies  is  sus- 
pended, because,  not  being  suited  to  the  taste  of  Chris- 
tians of  the  present  day,  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
church,  they  need  revision  ;  I  should  suppose  the  same 
would  be  done  with  the  Book  of  common  prayer.  The 
reasons  for  this  are  the  same  in  kind,  though  not  equal 
in  degree.  A  revision  of  the  prayers  is  demanded  for 
"  clearing  them  of  obsolete  words  and  phrases,"  as  is 
said  in  the  other  case.  They  have  already  cleared  them 
of  "  local  references."  Why  not  do  more  ?  Why  should 
the  Book  of  common  prayer,  which  is  to  be  used  continu- 
ally in  public  worship,  retain  obsolete  words,  or  employ 
words  in  an  obsolete  sense  ?  Why  especially  should  it 
retain  anything  which,  by  common  consent,  is  laid  aside 
as  unsuitable  1  I  refer  now  to  what  is  called  ''  the  Church- 
ing of  Women ;"  which  has  gone  into  general  disuse. 
Mothers  at  this  day  cannot  be  expected  to  go  through  the 
service,  as  prescribed  in  the  Prayer  Book.  It  may  be  said, 
that  whatever  may  be  the  language  of  the  Rubric,  the 
service  is  to  be  referred  to  the  discretion  of  the  minister, 
and  to  the  option  of  women.  But  so  it  is,  that  their  op- 
tion is  always  against  the  service.  And  so  it  is  likely  to 
be ;   and  so  I  think  it  ought  to  be.   And  retaining  it  in  the 


THE    LITURGY.  119 

Prayer  Book  answers  no  purpose  but  to  show  what  was 
practised  in  former  times,  but  is  now  regarded  both  by 
the  Clergy  and  Laity,  as  inconsistent,  not  indeed  with 
piety,  nor  with  what  was  decency  in  other  states  of  soci- 
ety, but  with  modern  delicacy.  Why  then  I  ask,  is  an 
obsolete  ceremony  still  prescribed,  which  is  never  to  be 
observed  ? 

And  now,  as  I  have  touched  upon  the  Liturgy,  I  must 
go  a  little  farther.  As  to  the  general  current  of  thought 
and  sentiment  contained  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
— I  would  treat'it  with  the  sincerest  veneration,  not  be- 
cause the  form  in  which  it  is  presented  is  derived  from 
the  Fathers  of  the  church  of  England,  or  from  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church ;  but  be- 
cause it  is  thoroughly  scriptural,  and  suited  to  promote 
true,  evangelical  piety.  And  I  rejoice  in  the  thought, 
that  it  has,  through  the  blessing  of  God,  been  the  means 
of  aiding  the  devotions  of  an  innumerable  multitude  of 
believers,  and  training  them  up  for  the  worship  of  heaven. 
And  I  am  confident  that  ministers  and  Christians  of  all 
denominations  may  be  benefited  by  a  familiar  acquain- 
tance with  it.  But  as  I  have  said  before, — I  feel  myself 
at  liberty  to  call  in  question,  not  what  is  from  God,  but 
whatever  is  of  human  origin.  And  considering  the  ob- 
ject of  these  Lectures,  I  should  be  chargeable  with  a 
palpable  omission,  if  I  should  neglect  to  state  the  objec- 
tions which  lie  in  my  mind  not  only  against  the  constant 
and  exclusive  use  of  any  ^prescribed  forms  of  prayer ^ 
however  excellent,  but  against  what  seems  to  me  faulty 
in  the  structure  of  the  Liturgy  itself ^  as  now  used  in 
the  Episcopal  Church. 

It  is,  in  my  view,  a  serious  objection  to  the  Episcopal 


120  LECTURE    V. 

system,  that  it  does,  to  so  great  an  extent,  impose  upon 
ministers  and  people  an  unvarying,  and  what  appears  to 
me  an  irksome  uniformity  in  the  public  service.  This 
I  have  already  touched  upon.  Man  is  so  constituted, 
that  he  craves  variety ;  and  you  cannot  deprive  him  of 
it,  and  confine  him,  vi'ithout  any  obvious  reason,  to  one 
invariable  course,  even  in  religious  duties,  without  doing 
violence  to  the  principles  of  his  intellectual  and  moral 
nature.  Look  now  at  the  manner  prescribed  in  the 
Liturgy,  of  introducing  public  worship.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  every  morning  and  every  evening  service, 
the  minister  must  say :  "  Dearly  beloved  brethren,  the 
Scripture  moveth  us  in  sundry  places  to  acknowledge 
and  confess  our  manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  etc." 
Now  this  introductory  address,  which  is  of  some  length, 
is  all  true  and  important ;  and,  whenever  a  congregation 
need  to  be  informed,  that  confession  of  sin  is  required 
by  the  word  of  God,  it  is  proper  and  useful.  But  after 
the  people  have  been  frequently  and  fully  instructed  on 
this  point,  why  take  up  their  time  with  a  constant  and 
needless  repetition,  which  is  almost  sure  to  become  a 
dull  formality  ?  Instead  of  reiterating  continually,  and 
in  the  same  words,  that  the  Scripture  moveth  us  to  Con- 
fession, why  not  proceed  at  once  to  perform  the  duty  ? 
When  Christians  meet  together  for  the  express  purpose 
of  prayer,  there  is  surely  no  occasion  for  them  to  be  al- 
ways and  invariably  told  before  they  engage  in  prayer, 
that  the  Scripture  moveth  them  to  pray.  They  all  un- 
derstand this.  And  if  you  say,  it  is  proper  for  them  to 
be  continually  reminded  of  it,  you  might  just  as  well  say, 
that  the  people  should  be  continually  reminded  of  their 
duty  to  receive  instruction;  and  that  when  we  come  to 


THE    LITURGY.  121 

the  sermon,  it  is  proper  for  us  always  to  repeat  exactly 
the  same  form  before  we  begin,  and  say,  that  "  the  Scrip- 
ture in  sundry  places  moveth  us  to"  this  service,  that  is, 
ministers  to  preach,  and  the  people  to  hear.  And  I 
cannot  but  think  that,  although  ministers  quietly  sub- 
mit to  use  this  invariable  introductory  address  out  of 
respect  to  Episcopal  authority,  they  would  after  all,  in 
their  own  honest  feelings,  choose  to  be  left  at  liberty  to 
introduce  the  service  either  in  this  way  or  in  some  other, 
as  their  own  good  taste  and  judgment  should  dictate. 

See  too  how  remarkably  particular  and  minute  are 
the  directions  given  to  ministers  of  all  degrees  in  regard 
to  the  manner  of  conducting  the  public  service, — direct- 
ing them  just  what  they  shall  say  before  they  begin  and 
after  they  close  the  reading  of  the  lesson.  The  Rubric 
lays  down  this  rule,  to  be  always  observed ; — "  That  be- 
fore every  Lesson,  the  minister  shall  say.  Here  beginneth 
such  a  chapter,  or  verse  of  such  a  chapter,  of  such  a 
Book :  and  after  every  Lesson,  Here  endeth  the  first,  or 
the  second  Lesson."  It  is  indeed  proper  that  the  min- 
ister should  inform  the  Congregation  what  portion  of 
Scripture  is  to  be  read,  as  ministers  of  all  denominations 
are  accustomed  to  do.  But  why  is  it  necessary  to  pre- 
scribe the  particular  manner,  in  which  this  information 
shall  be  given?  Why  especially  is  it  always  necessary 
to  say  to  the  Congregation,  who  have  the  Lesson  in  the 
Prayer  Book  right  before  them, — "  Here  endeth  the  first, 
or  the  second  Lesson  ?"  Why  any  more  necessary  than 
to  say  at  the  close  of  every  prayer  that  is  read,  Here 
endeth  the  prayer  1  In  the  Episcopal  service,  the  whole 
Congregation,  several  times,  repeat  the  Lord's  prayer 
with  the  minister,  and  they  all  join  in  saying  other 


122  LECTURE    V. 

prayers  after  the  minister,  as  little  children  say  prayers 
or  hymns  after  their  parents.  Now  everything  of  this 
kind  appears  to  me  to  be  a  real  hinderance  to  devotion, 
and  a  disorder  and  confusion  quite  inconsistent  w'\\h.  the 
solemnity  and  stillness  which  ought  to  pervade  a  religious 
assembly.  And  it  seems  to  me,  if  Paul  were  here,  he 
would  reprove  it, — as  he  reproved  the  confusion  in  the 
Corinthian  church  which  was  occasioned  by  several  per- 
sons speaking  together.  What  I  have  now  noticed,  and 
also  the  very  frequent  changes  of  posture  in  the  Assembly, 
must,  I  think,  appear  strange  and  unbecoming  to  any 
one,  who  has  not  been  reconciled  to  them  by  long  use. 

The  order  of  services  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  which 
extends  through  the  whole  year,  is  exceedingly  particu- 
lar. There  is  a  special  service  for  the  first,  second, 
third  and  fourth  Sundays  in  Advent,  i.  e.  the  four 
Sundays  before  Christmas ;  then  for  Christmas,  and  the 
first  Sunday  after  Christmas;  then  for  the  Circumci- 
sion of  Christ ;  then  for  the  Epiphany,  or  manifestation 
of  Christ  to  the  Gentiles;  then  for  the  first,  second, 
third,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  Sundays  after  Epiphany; 
then  for  Septuagesima,  or  the  third  Sunday  before 
Lent,  then  for  the  second,  and  the  first  Sunday  before 
Lent;  then  for  each  Sunday  during  the  forty  days  of 
Fasting  in  Lent;  then  for  Good  Friday, — Easter, — and 
the  five  Sundays  after  Easter;  then  the  Ascension  day  ; 
then  Whitsunday,  or  Pentecost ;  then  Trinity  Sunday, 
and  each  of  the  twenty-five  Sundays  after  Trinity  ;  then 
St.  Andrew's  day,  St.  Thomas's  day,  etc.  then  All  Saints 
day. — The  arrangement  for  every  year  is  the  same. — 
Now  my  curiosity  leads  me  to  inquire,  what  is  the  rea- 


THE    LITURGY.  123 

son  of  all  this?  Why  was  such  a  particular  and  uniform 
arrangement  made?  Neither  Christ  nor  the  Apostles 
give  any  instructions  expressly  or  impliedly  favorable  to 
it.  And  if  it  is  considered  in  the  light  of  expediency, 
I  inquire,  whether  imposing  one  and  the  same  course 
for  each  and  every  year  tends  to  spiritual  improvement, 
and  whether  it  has  resulted  in  intellectual  and  moral 
attainments  above  those  which  have  been  found  under 
other  forms  of  Public  Worship. 

I  have  one  more  question,  namely ;  whether  the  above 
mentioned  assignment  of  particular  services  to  each 
Sunday  is  founded  on  any  obvious  reasons,  and  whether 
the  particular  services  assigned  to  each  Sunday  are  in 
reality  any  better  adapted  to  that  Sunday,  than  to  some 
other ;  or  if  it  is  so  in  some  cases,  whether  it  is  so  gen- 
erally. For  example ;  is  the  short  prayer  provided  for 
the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  any 
more  adapted  to  that  Sunday,  than  to  the  eighteenth  or 
nineteenth.  The  particular  prayer  for  the  seventeenth 
is  this — the  whole  prayer  consisting  of  one  sentence : 
*'  Lord,  we  pray  thee,  that  thy  grace  may  always  prevent 
and  follow  us,  and  make  us  continually  to  be  given  to 
all  good  works,  through  Jesus  Christ."  Now  is  there 
any  reason  for  assigning  this  prayer  to  the  seventeenth 
rather  than  to  the  eighteenth,  for  which  the  following 
prayer  is  provided;  "Lord,  we  beseech  thee,  grant  thy 
people  grace  to  withstand  the  temptations  of  the  world, 
the  flesh,  and  the  Devil,  and  with  pure  hearts  and  minds 
to  follow  thee,  the  only  God,  through  Jesus  Christ."  No 
reason  appears,  why  these  prayers  should  not  be  exchang- 
ed the  one  for  the  other.  The  same  is  true  in  a  majority 
of  cases.     While  then  the  service  provided  for  some  occa- 


124  LECTURE    V. 

sions  has  an  evident  and  happy  adaptedness  to  those  oc- 
casions; we  must  regard  the  arrangement  in  other  cases 
as  altogether  arbitrary.  Now,  even  if  it  is  expedient  to 
require  ministers  and  churches  to  conform  to  a  particular 
arrangement  of  public  services  when  there  is  an  obvious 
reason  for  the  arrangement ;  is  it  expedient,  when  there 
is  no  reason  ? 

But  I  must  now  state  a  more  serious  objection  against 
the  Liturgy,  namely,  that,  although  in  general  it  abounds 
in  scriptural  and  devout  sentiments,  if  contains  some 
passages  which  are  highly  exceptionable.  And  no  one 
will  say,  that  its  general  excellence  can  justify  its  errors. 
The  Episcopal  church  has  the  power  to  make  alterations 
in  the  Liturgy.  They  have  exercised  this  power,  and 
have  actually  made  important  alterations.  And  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  them  from  making  more,  if  they  judge 
best.  Must  we  not  then  consider  whatever  is  found  in 
the  Liturgy,  to  be  a  true  expression  of  the  belief  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  America, — not  the  be- 
lief of  every  individual,  but  of  the  church  as  a  whole? 

The  particular  fault  to  which  I  now  object,  is  the  false 
doctrine  contained  in  the  Baptismal  service, — which  as- 
serts the  regeneration  of  all  who  are  baptized.  After  the 
child  is  baptized,  the  minister  says ;  "  Seeing  now  that 
this  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  let  us  give  thanks  to  Almighty  God  for  these  be- 
nefits." Then  follov/s  the  Thanksgiving. — ''  We  give 
the  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath 
pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy 
Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thijic  own  child  by  adoption, 
and  to  ingraft  him  into  thy  holy  church."  Now  if  it 
were  a  fact,  that  every  baptized  child  is  regenerated  by 


THE    LITURGY.  125 

the  Holy  Spirit  and  made  God's  own  child  by  adoption, 
it  would  be  a  plain  duty  to  acknowledge  it  with  grati- 
tude. But  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  fact,  either  from 
Scripture,  observation,  or  experience.  And  when  those 
Episcopal  ministers,  (and  there  are  many  such,)  who  cor- 
dially receive  the  teachings  of  Holy  Writ  as  to  the  native 
corruption  of  man  and  the  necessity  of  a  spiritual  regen- 
eration, go  through  with  the  Baptismal  service,  and  say, 
that  the  baptized  child  is  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit ;  do  they  really  believe  lohat  the  words  naturally  ex- 
press ?  It  is  evident  they  do  not.  For  when  baptized 
children  come  to  years  of  understanding,  they  do  not  tell 
them  that  they  have  already  been  born  again  of  the  di- 
vine Spirit,  but  they  urge  upon  them,  just  as  all  evange- 
lical ministers  do,  the  important  doctrine,  that  they  must 
experience  this  spiritual  renovation  in  order  to  prepare 
them  for  heaven,  and  that  it  is  unsafe  to  place  any  reli- 
ance upon  the  circumstance  of  their  having  been  bap- 
tized. And  yet  those  ministers  are  obliged  to  say,  in  so 
many  words,  that  the  baptized  child  is  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  received  as  God's  own  child  by 
adoption,  and  incorporated  into  God's  holy  church ; — 
language  which  expresses  the  idea  of  a  real,  saving 
change  both  of  character  and  state,  as  clearly  and  strong- 
ly, as  any  language  can  do  it.  It  seems  to  me,  that  such 
ministers  must  regret  the  necessity  of  saying  this :  be- 
cause the  language  does  plainly  express  a  sentiment 
which  is  not  theirs;  and  they  must,  I  think,  have  found 
by  experience,  that  the  practice  of  using  words  and  sen- 
tences in  this  manner  cannot,  without  some  painful  strug- 
gles, be  made  to  sit  quietly  upon  an  enlightened  and  up- 
right mind.     Those,  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal 


126  LECTURE    V. 

regeneration,  according  to  the  plain,  literal  meaning  of 
the  language  employed  in  the  service,  believe  that  re- 
generating grace,  or  more  exactly,  regeneration  hy  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  spiritual  regeneration,  or  the  new 
hirth,  is  conveyed  to  the  child,  through  the  efficacy  of 
Baptism.  Just  look.  The  moment  before  Baptism  the 
child  is  unregenerate  ;  the  moment  after,  he  is  regene- 
rate. Accordingly  it  is  during  the  ^e,w  moments  occu- 
pied in  Baptism,  that  the  child  is  "  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  received  as  God's  own  child  by  adop- 
tion, and  incorporated  into  God's  holy  church."  Here, 
in  this  wonderful  transaction,  a  great  and  glorious  change 
is  accomplished, — the  very  change  which  Jesus  declar- 
ed to  be  absolutely  necessary  for  every  human  being, — 
a  new  birth  effected  by  the  Spirit  of  God, — a  change 
from  a  state  of  sin  to  a  state  of  holiness, — a  change 
from  being  a  child  of  wrath  to  being  an  adopted  child 
of  God.  But  if  such  a  momentous  and  instantaneous 
change  as  this  is  really  produced  by  Baptism,  or  dur- 
ing the  time  of  Baptism ;  it  is  certainly  reasonable  to 
expect  some  manifestations  or  evidences  of  it.  And  if 
no  such  evidences  appear,  I  should  suppose  that  those, 
who  believe  that  such  a  change  takes  place  in  Baptism, 
would  be  grievously  disappointed,  and  would  hardly 
know  what  to  think  of  it.  Now  do  any  such  evidences 
appear  ?  Does  not  the  Baptized  child  exhibit  the  same 
moral  qualities  as  children  who  are  not  Baptized?  When 
he  comes  to  years  of  understanding,  does  he  not  after  all 
show  that  he  needs  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  much  as  though  he  had  not  been  regenerated  by  Bap- 
tism? As  Baptized  children  grow  up,  do  not  most  of 
them  show,  that  they  are  not  children  of  God  by  adop- 


THE    LITURGY.  127 

tion  ?  And  when  they  are  awakened  to  consideration,  and 
convinced  of  sin,  do  they  not  know  and  feel,  as  all  other 
convinced  sinners  do,  the  inefficacy  of  all  outward  rites, 
and  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 
And  would  any  gospel  minister  tell  them,  that  they  had 
already  been  regenerated,  and  that  their  anxiety  on  that 
subject  was  needless  ? 

Bishop  Hobart  says,  "  that  there  is  a  distinction  made 
in  the  language  of  the  Episcopal  church  as  well  as  in 
Scripture,  between  Regeneration  and  Renovation"  And 
he  maintains  "  that  unless  the  baptized  person  is  renew- 
ed by  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  baptismal  regeneration  will 
only  increase  his  guilt."*  It  comes  to  this,  that  the  bap- 
tized person  is  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  but 
not  "  reneiued  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  although  he  is 
already  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  it  will  profit 
him  nothing,  unless  he  is  "  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Our  author  does  not  however  undertake  to  tell  us  what 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  really  is,  and 
how  it  differs  from  the  work  of  the  same  Spirit  in  reno- 
vation. We  had  supposed  that  whatever  might  be  the 
case  as  to  the  influence  of  outward  rites,  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  inward,  and  influences  the  affections. 
But  he  holds  to  an  important  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
regeneration,  which  does  not  touch  the  inward  affec- 
tions;  although  in  another  part  of  the  service,  the  child 
is  spoken  of  as  receiving  *'  forgiveness  of  sin  by  this  spi- 
ritual regeneration.''  The  Bishop  maintains  Baptismal 
Regeneration  expressly  "  in  this  sense,  that  the  baptized 
person  is  horn  again,  not  in  the  affections  of  his  soul, 
but  into  a  new  state,  etc."  He  is  regenerated  or  "  born 
*  Hobart's  Apology  for  Apostolic  Order,  p.  230.  2d.  ed. 


128  LECTURE    V. 

again,"  and  that  too  hy  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  is  not  re- 
generated "  in  the  affections  of  his  soul."  These  remain 
as  they  were.  And  the  "  new  state"  into  which  he  is 
brought,  when  in  Baptism  he  is  regenerated  by  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  is  not  a  new  spiritual  state, — it  does  not  per- 
tain to  his  inward  affection^ ;  and  of  course  it  must  be  a 
new  outward  state.  The  Bishop  says,  the  baptized  per- 
son is  born  again  "  into  a  new  state,  in  which  he  receives 
conditionally  a  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  cove- 
nant." "  Receives  conditionally."  But  the  Baptismal 
service  says  nothing  like  this.  It  does  not  hint  at  any- 
thing conditional.  It  declares  directly  and  positively, 
that  the  baptized  child  is  "  regenerated  hy  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, and  received  as  God's  own  child  hy  adoption,  and 
incorporated  into  God's  holy  church."  Are  not  these 
the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  covenant  ?  The  Episcopal 
minister  renders  thanks  to  God  that  all  these  blessings 
are  actually  bestowed  upon  the  baptized  child.  And  he 
does  the  same  in  regard  to  the  baptized  adult ;  and  the 
service  for  adults,  in  several  parts,  plainly  implies,  that 
the  baptized  person,  before  Baptism,  is  unregenerate, 
and  that  in  or  by  the  act  of  Baptism,  he  is  born  again 
not  only  of  water,  but  also  of  the  Spirit.  The  minister 
does  not  say,  as  we  should  suppose  he  would  according 
to  the  Bishop's  explanation  of  the  matter ;  "  we  yield 
thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath 
pleased  thee  conditionally  to  give  to  this  child  a  title  to 
be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  be  received  as 
thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  be  incorporated  into 
thy  holy  church."  He  does  not  thus  thank  God  for  giving 
the  child  a  conditional  title  to  these  gospel  blessings ; 
but  he  thanks  God  that  he  has  alreadv,  in  the  rite  of 


THE    LITURGY.  129 

Baptism,  actually  bestowed  them.  Accordingly,  I  find 
no  small  difficulty  in  making  the  Bishop's  explanation  of 
the  Baptismal  service,  agree  with  the  language  of  the 
service.  The  one  says,  "  a  conditional  title  to  gospel 
blessings"  is  received  in  Baptism  ;  the  other  says,  the 
blessings  themstlves  are  received.  And  the  Church 
Catechism  also  says,  that  the  persons  baptized,  "  being 
by  nature  born  in  sin,  and  children  of  wrath,  are  here- 
by," (i.  e.  by  Baptism)  "  made  the  children  ol  grace." 

It  would  be  gratifying  to  my  feelings  to  know  precisely 
what  is  meant  in  the  above  quotation  by  ''  the  baptized 
person  receiving  conditionally  a  title  to  the  blessings  of 
the  Gospel  Covenant."  The  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
renew  and  sanctify  the  heart  is  mentioned  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  one  of  the  special  blessings  of  the  Gospel  Cove- 
enant.  Another  of  these  blessings  is  set  forth  in  that 
gracious  promise  of  God,  "  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye 
shall  be  my  sons  and  daughters."  In  this  is  included  all 
good.  Such  are  the  principal  blessings  of  the  New  Cov- 
enant. The  baptized  child  receives  a  conditioned  title 
to  these  blessings.  A  conditional  title,  is  a  title  depend- 
ing on  the  fulfilment  of  certain  conditions.  What  are 
the  conditions  in  this  case  ?  The  conditions  cannot  be 
the  application  of  water  to  the  child  and  solemnly  pro- 
nouncing over  him  by  the  minister  the  name  of  the  F 
ther  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  it  is  in  or 
by  this  Baptismal  service,  that  he  receives  the  condition- 
al title, — the  conditions  of  the  title  being  still  to  he  ful- 
filled. What  then  are  the  conditions  ?  And  by  whom 
are  they  to  be  performed  1  It  appears  from  the  Baptis- 
mal service,  that  the  conditions  are  to  be  performed  for 
a  time,  by  the  Sponsors,  that  is,  the  parents  or  other  per- 
9 


130 


LECTURE    V 


sons,  who  present  the  child  for  Baptism,  and  enter  into 
solemn  engagements  for  him  and  in  his  name.  The 
minister,  after  referring  to  the  promise  of  Christ,  says  to 
the  Sponsors  :  *'  This  infant  must  also — for  his  part, 
promise  by  you  that  are  his  sureties  (until  he  come  of 
age  to  take  it  upon  himself,)  that  he  will  renounce  the 
Devil  and  all  his  works,  and  constantly  believe  God's 
holy  word,  and  obediently  keep  his  commandments." 
He  then  puts  the  particular  questions  to  each  one  of  the 
sureties  and  receives  the  answers.  ''  Dost  thou,  in  the 
name  of  this  child,  renounce  the  Devil  and  all  his  works, 
the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with  all  covetous 
desires  of  the  same,  and  all  sinful  desires  of  the  flesh  — ?" 
Answer.  "  I  renounce  them  all ;  and  will  endeavour  by 
God's  help,  not  to  follow  them — ." — "  Dost  thou  be- 
lieve all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  contained 
in  the  Apostles'  creed?"  Ans.  "  I  do."  *'  Wilt  thou 
be  baptized  into  this  faith  ?"  Ans.  "  That  is  my  de- 
sire." "  Wilt  thou  then  obediently  keep  all  God's  com- 
mandments, and  walk  in  them  all  the  days  of  thy  life?" 
Ans.  "  I  will,  by  God's  help." — In  these  promises,  the 
Sureties,  severally,  personate  the  infant ;  that  is,  they 
speak  in  his  name,  and  enter  into  engagements  for  him. 
Now  there  are  some  things  in  this  transaction  which  a 
plain  Puritan  finds  it  rather  hard  to  understand.  Are 
the  sureties  responsible  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises 
they  make  ?  Or,  as  they  speak  in  the  name  of  the  child, 
does  the  responsibility  rest  on  him  1  It  seems  from  the 
transaction,  that  they  become  specially  responsible,  till 
the  child  comes  of  age.  If  so,  then  in  what  way  are  they 
to  fulfil  their  promises,  that  is,  in  what  way  is  each  of 
them  to  renounce  the  Devil  and  his  works,  and  to  be- 


THE     LITURGY.  131 

lieve  and  obey  God's  word  for  the  child  during  his  in- 
fancy/ 1  Is  the  faith  and  obedience  to  be  exercised  by 
the  Sureties,  or  by  the  child  1  If  the  Sureties  do  them- 
selves, in  the  exercise  of  their  own  faculties,  truly  believe 
and  obey,  is  that  a  fulfilment  of  the  promise  they  make 
in  the  name  of  the  child  ?  If  not,  then  what  more  shall 
they  do,  seeing  they  cannot  so  identify  themselves  with 
the  mind  of  the  child,  that  their  act  in  believing  and 
obeying  shall  become  his  own  personal  act  7  But  if, 
whatever  may  seem  to  be  implied  in  the  promise,  the 
Sponsors  are  not  really  responsible  for  the  child's  faith 
and  obedience  during  his  infancy,  and  if,  as  is  plainly 
signified,  the  child  is  not  responsible,  until  he  grows  up; 
then  where  does  the  responsibility  lie, — the  responsibili- 
ty for  the  fulfilment,  during  the  child's  infancy,  of  the 
promise  made  by  the  Sureties  ]  After  the  child  is  of 
sufficient  age,  he  of  course  takes  the  responsibility  upon 
himself 

If  the  real  import  of  the  promise  which  the  Sponsors 
make,  is  meant  to  be  this, — that  they  will  take  care,  as 
far  as  possible,  that  the  child  receive  a  religious  educa- 
tion ;  that  he  be  restrained  from  vice,  and  be  brought 
up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord ;  then  why 
should  not  the  language  of  the  promise  be  such  as  clear- 
ly to  convey  this  meaning?  Why  should  a  transaction 
made  up  of  mysteries, — an  (Enigma  (Enigmatorum,  more 
puzzling  than  Sampson's  riddle,  be  used  to  set  forth  or 
rather  to  cover  up  so  plain  a  matter  1 — an  enigma  too, 
the  explanation  of  which  is  another  and  a  still  darker 
enigma. 

But  to  return.  So  far  as  the  Sponsors  are  concerned, 
the  condition  of  the  child's  title  to  gospel  blessings  must 


132  LECTURE    V. 

be  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  they  make  in  behalf  of 
the  child.  And  these  promises  you  will  take  care  to  un- 
derstand as  well  as  you  can.  But  what  are  the  condi- 
tions which  relate  to  the  child  himself?  On  what  con- 
ditions,' to  be  performed  by  him,  does  his  title  to  the 
blessings  of  the  Gospel  Covenant  rest  ?  The  Gospel  it- 
self summarily  represents  these  conditions  to  be,  repen- 
tance toward  God,  and  faith  toward  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  child  then,  in  Baptism,  receives  a  title  to 
the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  Covenant,  on  condition  that, 
in  due  time,  he  shall  repent  and  believe.  But  here  is 
another  difficulty.  For  are  not  these  very  blessings  of- 
fered to  all,  whether  baptized  or  not,  on  these  same  con- 
ditions? And  does  not  every  faithful  minister,  whether 
Episcopal  or  not,  declare  to  all  men,  without  reference 
to  the  circumstance  of  their  having  been  baptized  or  not, 
that  all  spiritual  blessings  will  be  theirs,  if  they  will  re- 
pent, and  believe  in  Christ  ?  If  then  this  conditional 
title  is  common  to  all  who  live  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation ;  how  is  it  received  in  Baptism  ? 

I  have  only  a  word  more.  Episcopalians  have,  in  several 
instances  in  their  Liturgy,  provided  a  serond  form  of  the 
service,  to  be  used  by  any  who  shall  prefer  it  to  the  first. 
This  is  the  case  in  the  Ordination  service.  The  Bishop 
is  to  repeat  the  first  form,  or  another  which  follows  it. 
The  same  choice  between  two  modes  of  proceeding  is 
provided  as  to  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  Baptism,  and  as 
to  the  mode  of  applying  the  water,  and  as  to  repeating  a 
part  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Now  such  a  provision  ap- 
pears to  me  much  more  important  in  this  case,  than  in 
any  of  the  other  cases  referred  to.  And  I  have  often  been 
inclined  to  ask,  why  Episcopalians  have  not,  in  this  case 


THE    LITURGY.  133 

as  in  the  others,  exercised  their  authority  and  their  cha- 
rity, and  provided  a  second  form  of  the  Baptismal  ser- 
vice, in  which  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  hy  the  Hohj 
Spirit  in  Baptism,  should  be  omitted,  so  that  ministers 
of  different  views  might  be  freed  from  a  heavy  burden, 
and  be  at  liberty  to  act  according  to  their  honest  convic- 
tions. 

My  next  allegation  against  the  Liturgy  is,  that  it  pre- 
sents a  loio  and  unscriptural  stanelorel  of  the  Christian 
charaeter.  Those  doubtless  are  regarded  as  true  believ- 
ers and  heirs  of  eternal  life,  who  are  confirmed  by  the 
Bishop,  and  received  to  the  communion  of  the  Supper, 
and  who  are  spoken  of  as  Christians  in  the  Funeral  Ser- 
vice. As  to  the  last,  although  the  Liturgy  has  been  im- 
proved by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  America, 
it  is  still  plainly  implied  in  the  whole  service,  that  the 
person  deceased,  whether  pious  or  not,  was  a  Christian, 
and  died  in  the  Lord.  To  any  one  who  reads  or  hears  the 
service,  this  is  perfectly  manifest.  And  there  is  no  way 
to  avoid  this  conclusion,  but  by  an  unnatural  and  forced 
explanation,  or  rather  an  evasion,  of  the  import  of  the 
language.  The  service  is  exceedingly  solemn  and  im- 
pressive, and  is  remarkably  appropriate  to  the  funeral  of 
a  devout  Christian.  But  if  used  at  the  burial  of  a  per- 
son who  was  evidently  destitute  of  the  Christian  charac- 
ter, as  it  so  frequently  is  ;  it  conveys  the  false  and  dan- 
gerous sentiment,  that  a  life  of  ungodliness  is  not  incom- 
patible with  a  title  to  heaven ;  and  in  this  way  it  directly 
tends  to  confirm  the  irreligious  in  their  irreligious  life. 
And  here  I  cannot  but  notice  the  manifest  inconsisten- 
cy, not  to  say  absurdity,  of  attempting  to  frame  a  single 


134  LECTURE    V. 

service,  which  shall  be  suited  to  the  burial  of  the  most 
eminent  servant  of  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  suited 
to  the  burial  of  the  worldly  and  profane.  The  service  is 
indeed  "  not  to  be  used  for  any  unbaptized  adults,  or 
any  who  die  excommunicate,  or  who  have  laid  violent 
hands  upon  themselves."  These  are  the  only  exceptions. 
It  may  be  used  for  baptized  inebriates,  or  infidels.  There 
are  many  persons,  who,  for  some  cause,  have  not  been 
baptized,  who  yet  have  exhibited,  in  life  and  in  death, 
the  character  of  exemplary  Christians.  To  these,  Chris- 
tian burial  is,  according  to  the  Rubric,  to  be  denied. 

An  unscriptural  standard  of  Christian  character  is  also 
held  forth  in  the  **  Order  of  Confirmation."  In  the  first 
place,  the  minister  says  to  the  Sureties  for  the  baptized 
child  :  "  Ye  are  to  take  care  that  this  child  be  brought 
to  the  Bishop  to  be  confirmed  by  him,  as  soon  as  he  can 
say  the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  is  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  other  parts  of 
the  Church  Catechism  set  for  that  purpose'^  The  same 
qualifications  are  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  the 
*'  Order  of  Confirmation."  Confirmation  is  limited  to 
"  such  as  can  say  the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the 
ten  commandments,  and  can  also  answer  to  such  other 
questions  as  in  the  Short  Catechism  are  contained." 
These  are  the  qualifications  required  in  order  to  Confir- 
mation, and,  as  I  suppose,  in  order  to  communion  with 
the  church  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  am  happy  to  say, 
there  are  Bishops  who  go  far  above  this  low  standard, 
and,  with  a  laudable  zeal  and  fidelity,  insist  upon  much 
more  than  is  required  in  the  articles  relating  to  Confirma- 
tion, that  is,  a  mere  ability  to  "  say  the  Creed,  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  ten  commandments,  and  the  Church  Cate- 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  135 

chism ;"  and  who  will  not  confirm  and  receive  to  the 
Communion  of  the  Supper  any  persons  who  do  not  give 
some  satisfactory  evidence  of  real  piety.  And  I  cannot 
but  think  that  such  Bishops  are  fully  aware  of  the  above- 
mentioned  deficiency  in  the  Liturgy,  and  regret  that 
"  the  Order  of  Confirmation"  does  not  hold  up  to  public 
view  a  higher  and  more  Scriptural  standard  of  Christian 
character.  They  may  indeed  do  something  towards  sup- 
plying the  deficiency  by  a  reference  to  other  parts  of  the 
Liturgy,  and  to  the  Homilies  perhaps.  But  a  manifest 
deficiency  it  is ;  and  it  comes  continually,  with  all  its 
deceptive  influence,  before  the  minds  of  those  who  at- 
tend the  public  service  of  Confirmation  in  the  Episcopal 
church. 

It  is,  with  me,  a  grave  objection  to  the  Episcopal 
Church,  that  it  retains  and  sanctions  so  many  of  the 
additions  which  were  made  to  the  simple  institutions  of 
the  gospel  hy  the  superstition  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
and  the  church  of  Rome.  The  corruption  of  Christiani- 
ty by  human  inventions  began  even  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostles.  And  these  inventions,  these  additions  to  the 
divine  institutions,  whether  recommended  hy  their  novelty, 
or  rendered  venerable  hy  their  antiquity,  the  Apostles 
repeatedly  and  severely  condemned.  And  they  foretold, 
that  still  greater  corruptions  would,  by  the  same  means, 
be  brought  into  the  church  after  their  decease.  In  the 
primitive  ages,  superstition  developed  itself  continually 
by  new,  inventions,  which  were  intended  to  impress  the 
popular  mind  in  favor  of  religion,  and  to  give  increased 
influence  to  its  holy  doctrines  and  laws.  The  Christian 
Fathers,  during  the  three  or  four  centuries  after  Christ, 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  church  of  Rome.  That  church. 


136  LECTUREV. 

during  tlie  period  of  its  greatest  power  and  corruption, 
constantly  appealed  to  the  Fathers ;  and  the  appeal  was 
not  in  vain.  If  the  Fathers  during  the  first  four  or  five 
centuries  are  allowed  to  possess  decisive  authority  in 
regard  to  opinions,  rites  and  ceremonies ;  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Romish  church  can,  for  the  most  part,  be 
vindicated  and  sustained.  Many  of  the  best  writers  in 
the  church  of  England,  and  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  America,  disclaim  the  authority  of  the  Fa- 
thers, and  hold  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  sufficient  and 
only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  And  yet  Episcopalians 
at  this  day  retain  a  great  proportion  of  the  rites,  and 
ceremonies  of  Popery ; — not  so  much,  I  suppose,  be- 
cause they  belonged  to  Popery,  as  because  they  have  so 
long  been  practised  in  their  own  church.  Some  in- 
deed consider  it  as  a  conclusive  argument  in  their  de- 
fence, that  they  were  in  use  during  the  first  ages  of 
Christianity.  A  late  rccpectable  writer  in  favor  of  Pre- 
lacy says,  "  that  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  is,  the  deference  it  pays  to 
the  Primitive  Church ;  that  it  is  the  principle  constantly 
maintained  by  that  Church,  that  whatever  isjirst  is  true, 
and  whatever  is  later  is  false."  On  this  ground,  (which 
has  already  been  examined,)  many  Episcopalians  con- 
tend for  those  various  ceremonial  observances,  which 
have  been  added  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel. 

Now  I  do  not  admit  that  aneient  Fathers  had  any 
more  authority  to  make  additions  to  the  divine  institu- 
tions, than  modern  Fathers.  Why  should  we  pay  def- 
erence to  uninspired  men  in  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries, more  than  to  those  in  the  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries ; — or,  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Episcopal 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  137 

Church  in  England,  more  than  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  Scotland,  or  to  the  Fathers  of 
the  Puritan  church  in  New  England  ?  The  opinion  and 
practice  of  uninspired  men  cannot  bind  us.  We  are 
Protestants. — And  it  seems  to  me,  that  Episcopalians, 
professing  as  they  do  to  be  Protestants,  act  inconsistent- 
ly with  their  profession  in  paying  so  much  regard  to  an- 
tiquity, and  especially  in  retaining  so  many  of  the  pecu- 
liar forms  and  observances  of  the  Romish  church.  And 
I  think  too,  that  the  Episcopal  church  is  inconsistent 
with  itself,  in  that  it  adopts  some  of  the  ancient  obser- 
vances, while  it  rejects  others.  The  holy  days  kept  in 
honor  of  the  Trinity,  of  Angels,  of  the  birth  and  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  the  Apostles, 
of  several  particular  Martyrs  and  Christian  Fathers,  etc. 
were  all  at  first  ecclesiastical  innovations ;  but  they  be- 
came settled  usages  in  the  Ancient  church.  The  foun- 
ders of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  by  taking  some 
of  these,  and  omitting  others,  showed  that  they  had  no 
implicit  conjfidence  in  antiquity,  and  that  they  claimed 
the  right  of  judging  and  acting  for  themselves.  When 
they  pleased,  they  adopted  an  observance  which  originat- 
ed in  the  bosom  of  Popery  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and 
rejected  one  which  was  generally  observed  in  the  third 
century.  Now  are  net  those  who  profess  such  deference 
to  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  while  after  all  they  are  not  gov- 
erned by  it,  chargeable  with  some  inconsistency?  Does 
their  deference  really  amount  to  any  more  than  this,  that 
they  will  follow  the  Ancients  or  not,  as  they  judge  best  ? 
If  this  is  all,  then  we  agree  with  them.  If  they  profess 
more  than  this,  their  practice  falls  short  of  their  profes- 
sion.    If  then  modern  Episcopalians  charge  us  with  the 


138  LECTURE    V. 

want  of  a  due  veneration  for  antiquity,  because  we  reject 
most  of  the  ancient  ceremonies  which  they  adopt;  the 
same  charge,  substantially  lies  against  them,  because 
they  take  upon  them  to  reject  so  many  of  the  ancient 
ceremonies.  The  ancient  Fathers  in  administering  Bap- 
tism, in  the  fourth  century,  immersed  the  person  three 
tunes,  naked,  and  then  made  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  his 
forehead,  and  anointed  him  with  holy  oil.  But  Episcopa- 
lians reject  the  trine  immersion,  and  the  ceremony  of 
nakedness,  and  the  anointing,  and  do  not  commonly  use 
immersion.  I  do  not  blame  them  for  all  this.  But  where 
is  the  deference  they  profess  to  the  ancient  church, 
when  they  reject  the  greater  part  of  the  ceremonies 
which  were  anciently  used  in  Baptism? 

The  Episcopal  church  have,  if  I  am  rightly  informed, 
about  twenty-eight  Festivals,  and  about  one  hundred 
Fasts; — that  is,  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  holy-days, 
in  addition  to  the  Lord's  day; — taken  either  directly 
from  the  Romish  church, — for  instance,  the  Festival  in 
honor  of  the  Trinity,  which  Bishop  Hobart  says  is  com- 
paratively of  modern  date,  originating  as  it  did  in  the 
fourteenth  century, — or  from  what  they  call  the  Primi- 
tive church ;  and  all  on  the  ground  of  their  antiquity. 
But  the  Romish  church,  and  what  is  called  the  Primitive 
church,  had  many  more  Festivals  and  Fasts.  If  then 
the  Founders  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  England  and 
America  were  governed  by  a  respect  for  antiquity,  why 
did  they  not  take  the  whole  list  of  the  holy-days  of  an- 
tiquity, as  well  as  a  part?  And  if  they  are  at  liberty  to 
reject  more  or  fewer  of  the  holy-days  of  antiquity,  as  they 
judge  best ;  on  the  same  principle,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
reject  them  all,  if  we  judge  best.     If  ancient  usage  has 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  139 

authority  over  us,  it  has  authority  throughout.  But  if 
we  renounce  the  authority  of  what  is  commonly  called 
ancient  and  primitive  usage,  we  are  thrown  back,  as  we 
should  be,  upon  the  authority  of  what  is  more  Ancient 
and  Primitive,  that  is,  the  word  of  God. 

These  multiplied  outward  observances,  every  one  must 
see,  are  a  departure  from  the  Christian  Scriptures. 
Neither  Christ  nor  the  Apostles  appointed  any  particu- 
lar days  to  be  kept  as  sacred  by  the  church,  except  the 
Lord's  day.  On  the  contrary,  the  Apostle  Paul  express- 
ly and  pointedly  discountenanced  all  such  observances. 
In  the  way  of  severe  rebuke,  he  said  to  the  Galatians ; 
"  Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years." 
And  it  was  in  view  of  these  superstitions,  that  he  said 
to  them, — "  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I  have  bestowed 
upon  you  labor  in  vain."  And  he  spoke  of  them  as  in 
bondage  to  these  "  beggarly  elements."  If  the  same 
Apostle  were  here,  what  would  he  say  to  that  branch 
of  the  Protestant  Christian  church,  which  has  made 
about  one  third  of  the  days  in  the  year  religious  Festi- 
vals and  Fasts? 

These  multiplied  rites  and  observances  are  burden- 
some. Although  they  fall  far  short  of  the  observances 
in  the  Romish  church ;  still  they  are,  in  my  view,  car- 
ried to  a  great  excess,  and,  if  fully  practised,  would 
prove  an  intolerable  yoke.  Think  of  more  than  one 
hundred  and  twenty  Festivals  and  Fasts, — one  third  part 
of  the  whole  year !  Think  of  forty  days  in  Lent,  in 
which,  I  suppose,  the  stricter  sort  of  Episcopalians  ab- 
stain from  animal  food  !  Who  has  a  right  to  load  the 
church,  and  the  conscience  of  Christians,  with  such  im- 
positions?    I  was  born  free,  and  I  will  not  sell  my  birth- 


140  LECTURE    V. 

right.  Most  cheerfully  will  I  submit  to  the  authority  of 
God.  And  I  will  show  my  respect  and  veneration  for 
the  Apostles,  not  by  keeping  days  in  their  honor,  which 
I  know  they  never  wished, — but  by  believing  and  obey- 
ing their  instructions,  which  I  know  they  did  wish.  But 
what  is  mere  man,  uninspired  man,  that  we  should  bow 
the  knee  to  him, — and  that  we  should  eat  or  not  eat, 
and  work  or  pray,  at  his  bidding  ? 

This  whole  business  of  observing  days  and  months 
and  times,  which  began  in  the  Apostle's  day,  and  for 
which  he  rebuked  the  backsliding  Galatians,  has  an  ob- 
vious tendency  to  corrupt  Christianity,  and  to  substitute 
external  forms  and  ceremonies  in  the  place  of  real  godli- 
ness. When  I  look  at  the  machinery  of  the  Episcopal 
church  in  her  Sunday  services ;  her  multiplied  short 
prayers,  consisting  often  of  a  single  sentence,  and  con- 
stantly interrupted  by  other  intermingled  services ;  the 
frequent  repetition  of  the  Lord's  prayer;  the  continual 
change  of  posture  among  the  worshippers,  now  standing, 
now  sitting,  now  kneeling ;  the  confused  noise  of  the 
whole  congregation  often  speaking  the  same  things  to- 
gether ;  the  minister's  singular  dress,  and  change  of 
place  and  attire ; — when  I  look  at  her  many  scores  of 
Fasts  and  Festivals  in  honor  not  only  of  God,  and  Christ, 
but  of  the  mother  of  Christ,  and  each  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ, — in  honor  of  the  slaughtered  infants  of  Bethle- 
hem,— in  honor  of  all  saints, — and  in  honor  of  Saint  Mi- 
chael and  all  angels ; — at  her  crosses,  and  her  pictures, 
and  the  magnificence  of  her  Cathedrals ; — at  her  pro- 
tracted meetings  for  forty  days  in  Lent,  and  for  many 
days  at  other  times ;  when,  accustomed  as  I  am  to  the 
simplicity  of  Puritan  worship,  I  look  at  all  this  solemn 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  141 

machinery  ;  I  am  sometimes  affected  with  a  mixed  emo- 
tion of  respect  and  doubt  and  fear  ; — and  sometimes  an 
impression,  which  I  wish  to  avoid,  is  made  on  my  mind, 
— an  impression  too  similar  to  what  I  have,  when  I  look 
at  the  machinery  employed  by  such  men  as  Foote  and 
Burchard  and  Knapp, — their  protracted  meetings,  their 
anxious  seats,  their  moving  from  one  place  to  another, 
their  multitude  of  short  prayers, — in  a  word,  their  whole 
complicated  system  of  Nciv  Pleasures.  The  abovemen- 
tioned  forms  and  observances  of  the  Episcopal  church, 
though  now  fixed,  and  brought  into  a  uniform  order,  and 
made  respectable  by  long  use,  were  once  Nno  Measures, 
innovations,  human  contrivances,  intended  for  the  very 
purpose  of  working  upon  the  feelings  of  men  ;  and  I  fear 
they  have,  in  some  degree  at  least,  the  same  alliance 
with  superstition,  and  the  same  tendency  to  promote  a 
superficial,  ceremonial  religion,  with  the  machinery  of 
our  modern  evangelists  and  innovators.  The  Episcopal 
system  however  differs  in  one  essential  point,  namely,  that 
its  movements  and  ceremonies,  superabundant  as  I  think 
them  to  be,  are  all  exactly  prescribed  and  unalterable ; 
whereas  the  others  are  left  at  loose  ends,  to  be  managed 
and  shifted  by  the  ever-varying  fancies  and  freakish  hu- 
mors of  conceited,  obtrusive  individuals,  without  the 
consent  or  even  the  knowledge  of  the  great  body  of  evan- 
gelical ministers  and  intelligent  Christians. 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  ceremonials  of  the  church  are 
matters  of  ^f/^^e,  not  of  argument.  So  be  it.  I  have  w??/ 
taste,  and  a  right  to  tell  what  it  is, — and,  if  it  does  not 
contradict  anything  in  the  Bible,  I  have  a  right  to  con- 
form to  its  suggestions.  Let  me  say  then,  that  I  have  a 
preference,  too  strong  to  be  expressed,  for  what  i?,  plain 


142  LECTURE    V. 

and  simple.  The  worship  of  the  Puritans,  and  their 
freedom  from  rites  and  forms  of  human  origin,  instead 
of  being  contrary  to  any  principle  of  Christianity,  are 
certainly,  as  any  one  who  reads  the  New  Testament  will 
perceive,  conformed,  in  a  good  measure,  to  the  pattern 
set  before  us  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  The  perfect 
plainness  and  seriousness,  and  the  divine  simplicity  of 
their  public  and  social  worship  was  what  our  Puritan 
Fathers  endeavoured  to  copy,  but  scarcely  equalled,  and 
certainly  never  exceeded,  however  distant  they  were  from 
showy  rites  and  ceremonies.  In  this  respect  the  Puri- 
tans acted  on  a  widely  different  principle  from  the 
church  of  England, — which  did  not  even  pretend  to  fol- 
low the  simplicity  of  the  mode  of  worship  adopted  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  but  conformed,  and  that  pro- 
fessedly, to  the  ceremonies  and  observances  which  ori- 
ginated in  the  ancient  church,  subsequently  to  the  days 
of  inspiration. 

That  you  may  understand  more  fully  how  I  view  this 
general  subject,  I  will  advert  to  a  particular  case.  The 
Rubric  first  directs  that  the  sign  of  the  cross  shall  be 
made  on  the  forehead  of  the  baptized  child ;  but  imme- 
diately after  very  kindly  says,  that  if  those  who  present 
the  child  shall  desire  it,  the  sign  of  the  cross  shall  be 
omitted,  *'  although  the  church  knows  no  worthy  cause 
of  scruple  concerning  the  same."  Now  you  may  ask, 
what  worthy  cause  of  scruple  is  there  ?  What  harm  can 
there  be  in  such  a  significant  ceremony  as  this  ? 

My  reply  is,  that  using  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  Bap- 
tism is  a  human  invention,  an  addition  to  the  ordinance 
as  appointed  by  Christ,  and  practised  by  the  Apostles ; 
and  that  permitting  an  addition  in  this  respect  opens  the 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  143 

door  for  other  additions  without  number.  Why  should 
you  make  any  addition  to  a  rite,  which  was  complete  in 
its  original  form  ?  Do  you  adopt  it,  because  it  was  in- 
troduced by  the  Christian  Fathers  ?  But  by  what  au- 
thority did  they  introduce  it?  And  if  you  follow  them 
in  this  additional  ceremony,  you  may  also  in  the  three- 
fold immersion,  and  the  anointing,  and  the  nudity.  If 
you  allow  the  beginning  of  human  inventions  in  religion, 
the  evil  will  be  likely  to  grow ;  and  who  can  tell  where 
it  will  end '?  The  moment  in  which  any  ceremony,  in- 
vented by  man,  is  joined  to  a  divine  institution, — that  is 
the  moment  of  danger.  A  second  ceremony  may  be 
added  to  the  first,  and  then  a  third,  and  a  fourth ;  and 
unauthorized  ceremonies  may  be  multiplied,  as  they 
were  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and  still  more  in 
the  Romish  church,  till  religion,  instead  of  consisting, 
as  Christ  intended  it  should,  in  ivorshipping  God  in  Spi- 
rit and  in  truth,  shall  become  a  religion  of  ccremo?iies, 
— in  that  respect  resembling  the  religion  of  Mohamme- 
dans and  Hindoos. — As  to  the  outward  sign  of  the  cross, 
it  is  well  to  keep  in  mind  the  very  just  remark  of  a  dis- 
tinguished Episcopalian  ;  namely,  "  that  in  general,  the 
less  humble,  believing  regard  has  been  paid  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  cross,  and  to  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  offer- 
ed hy  the  crucified  Immanuel,  the  greater  veneration  has 
been  rendered  to  the  external  form.  This  outward  sign 
began  to  be  introduced,  when  the  simplicity  of  the  gos- 
pel had  become  greatly  corrupted.  It  was  at  its  height 
a  short  time  before  the  Reformation  ;  and  it  began  to 
decline,  when  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  became  more 
generally  understood  and  believed." 


LECTURE    VI 


In  regard  to  the  externals  in  religion,  I  must  claim 
for  myself  the  same  right  to  think  and  speak  and  act,  as 
I  am  willing  to  concede  to  others.  It  is,  in  my  view,  an 
unquestionable  truth,  that  ceremonies  and  ritual  obser- 
vances of  some  kind,  and  to  some  extent,  are  demanded 
by  the  principles  of  our  nature;  and  that,  whatever  may 
be  the  degree  of  our  intelligence  and  piety,  we  cannot 
be  deprived  of  them  without  loss.  The  author  of  our 
religion  appointed  external  rites  to  be  observed  perpetu- 
ally in  his  church  on  earth.  And  as  he  knew  what  was 
in  man,  and  what  external  means  were  best  adapted  to 
his  nature  and  his  wants ;  we  ought,  I  think,  to  have 
perfect  confidence  in  the  wisdom  of  his  appointments, 
and  be  satisfied  with  just  the  kind  and  the  number  of 
ceremonial  observances,  which  he  and  his  inspired  Apos- 
tles introduced.  What  is  there  in  tlie  condition  of  men 
in  subsequent  ages,  which  can  be  supposed  to  render 
other  rites  and  ceremonies  more  needful,  than  they  were 
in  the  days  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  1  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  best  way  to  manifest  our  reverence  for  the  Foun- 
ders of  Christianity,  is,  to  confine  ourselves  exactly  to 
the  external  institutions  and  rites  which  they  establish- 
ed, not  doubting  that  they  would  have  varied  them,  or 
added  more,  had  they  judged  it  necessary  to  the  welfare 
of  the  church. 

10 


146  LECTURE    VI. 

But  if,  instead  of  ihis  rigid  adherence  to  the  simple 
instructions  and  example  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  we 
adopt  the  principle  of  the  Episcopalians,  as  stated  in  the 
20th  Article,  namely;  that  "the  Church  hath  power  to 
decree  rites  and  ceremonies," — though  not  **  contrary 
to  God's  written  word  ;"  and  as  stated  in  their  34th  Ar- 
ticle, namely ;  that  "  Every  particular  or  national  church 
hath  authority  to  ordain,  change  and  abolish  ceremonies 
or  rites  of  the  church,  ordained  only  by  man's  authority, 
so  that  all  things  be  done  to  edifying  ;" — if  we  adopt  this 
principle,  and  consider  the  church  as  having  authority 
over  rites  and  ceremonies,  under  the  limitations  mention- 
ed ;  still  is  it  not  important  that  the  church  should  use 
that  authority  aright?  And  if  any  '*  particular  church," 
for  example,  the  Reformed  church  in  the  time  of  Luther, 
or  the  Puritan  church  in  the  time  of  Owen  and  Baxter, 
or  the  church  of  Scotland,  is  seriously  convinced,  that 
any  rites  or  ceremonies  of  human  origin,  Avhich  have 
been  customary,  are  not  edifying,  but  tend  to  supersti- 
tion :  then,  according  to  the  very  Article  above  quoted, 
has  not  that  church  "  authority  to  —  abolish"  those 
"  rites?" 

Under  the  Mosaic  economy,  religious  rites  and  cere- 
monies existed  in  great  abundance,  constituting,  as  Pe- 
ter represented.  Acts  15 :  10,  an  intolerable  yoke,  or  as 
Paul  called  it.  Gal.  5:1,  "a  yoke  of  bondage."  But 
those  multiplied  rites,  which  were  appointed  for  tempo- 
rary purposes,  were  superseded  by  the  more  spiritual 
dispensation  of  Christianity.  We  cannot  then  argue 
from  the  existence  of  any  rite  or  ceremony  under  the 
former  dispensation,  that  it  should  be  kept  up  under  the 
latter.     This  argument  can  no  more  be  used  to  justify 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  147 

costly  and  gorgeous  vestments  for  any  class  of  Christian 
ministers,  than  to  justify  the  sacrifice  of  beasts,  or  any 
other  ritual  observances.  Be  it  so,  that  the  kind  and 
number  of  ceremonies  to  be  used  among  Christians, 
must  be  referred  to  their  own  judgment  and  taste,  in  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  are  placed.  Still,  is  there 
not  a  wrong  judgment  and  taste,  as  well  as  a  right  ?  And 
are  there  not  some  sober  principles,  some  rational  con- 
siderations, which  should  guide  us  in  this  matter  ?  May 
we  not  learn  some  useful  lessons  from  the  history  of  the 
church  in  different  periods  and  in  different  places?  In 
the  proper  use  of  our  discretionary  power,  nothing  can 
afford  us  more  valuable  assistance,  than  the  experience 
of  past  times.  It  will  be  suitable  then,  that  we  should 
make  a  twofold  inquiry:  first;  what  has  been  the  state 
of  religion  at  those  times  when  the  ceremonies  of  the 
church  have  been  most  abundant  and  splendid;  and, 
secondly ;  what  has  been  the  state  of  religion,  when 
its  ceremonials  have  been  most  plain  and  simple?  If 
these  inquiries  are  diligently  and  candidly  pursued,  the 
result  cannot  fail  to  be  of  essential  benefit. 

Here  we  are  carried  back  to  the  long  period,  the  cen- 
turies upon  centuries,  in  which  Papal  Rome  was  trium- 
phant. That  was  preeminently,  the  period  of  rites  and 
ceremonies.  And  who  is  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the 
spirit  of  piety  decreased,  very  much  in  proportion  to  the 
increase  of  ceremonial  observances?  The  influence  of 
these  two  was  doubtless  reciprocal.  The  low  and  apos- 
tate condition  of  the  church  naturally  led  to  the  multipli- 
cation of  external  rites  and  forms,  as  a  substitute  for  true 
piety.  And  these,  in  their  turn,  by  occupying  the  mind 
with  a  lower  class  of  emotions,  precluded  those  which 


148 


LECTURE    VI. 


are  more  spiritual,  and  reduced  Christianity  to  such  a 
state,  that  little  more  than  the  name  was  left.  And  it 
is  much  the  same  at  the  present  day.  In  those  coun- 
tries where  there  is  the  greatest  abundance  of  ceremo- 
nies, and  where  ceremonies  are  most  highly  esteemed  ; 
there,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  the  least  real  piety.  In  such 
circumstances,  even  those  who  appear  to  be  religious, 
have  their  fancies  so  filled  and  delighted  with  the  variety 
and  splendour  of  ceremonies,  that  it  is  difficult  for  divine 
truth  to  reach  their  hearts.  Their  minds  light  upon  the 
captivating  exterior,  and  rest  there ;  and,  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  they  are  deprived  of  the  more  essential 
elements  of  the  divine  life.  As  to  those  who  are  desti- 
tute of  piety, — their  attention  to  ceremonials  takes  the 
place  of  gospel  holiness,  and  produces  self-complacency, 
and  quietness  in  sin.  By  multiplying  outward  observan- 
ces, not  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God,  or  by  attaching  too 
great  importance  to  those  which  were  enjoined,  they 
make  void  the  divine  law.  And  facts  show,  both  among 
the  Jews  and  the  Catholics,  that  there  are  no  men  so 
shielded  against  the  power  of  truth,  and  so  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  as  those  whose  consciences  are  qui- 
eted and  whose  hearts  are  stupified  by  superstitious  ob- 
servances. The  most  abandoned  sinners, — our  Saviour 
says,  '*  publicans  and  harlots,"  are  more  easily  convert- 
ed than  they.  And  let  me  just  add,  that  they  who  have 
little  or  no  religion,  are,  in  many  cases,  strongly  inclin- 
ed to  multiply  external  rites  and  forms,  as  a  means  of  ap- 
peasing their  guilty  and  restless  consciences.  "  Being 
ignorant  of  the  righteousness  of  God,"  that  is,  of  God's 
way  of  justifying  them  who  believe,  and  being  opposed 
in  their  hearts  to  the  requirements  of  the  divine  law, 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  149 

"  they  go  about  to  establish  a  righteousness  of  their  own" 
by  superstitious  observances.  This  has  been  the  case  to 
a  great  extent  among  Jews  and  Christians,  and  also 
among  Mohammedans  and  Pagans. 

Turn  now  to  the  other  side.  Take  those  who  have 
adhered  most  strictly  to  the  simplicity  of  gospel  institu- 
tions, and  guarded  most  scrupulously  against  human 
inventions.  And  where  can  you  find  a  better  instance, 
than  the  Puritans  of  New  England  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  present  time  ?  Far  would  I  be  from  boasting. 
Were  I  ever  so  much  inclined  to  this,  there  is  enough 
in  New  England  to  prevent.  But  it  is  always  safe  to 
judge  of  the  tree  by  its  fruits.  And  I  am  persuaded 
that  the  character  of  the  Puritans  will  bear  to  be  tried 
by  this  test.  There  has,  I  think,  been  no  race  of  men, ' 
who  have  exhibited  more  of  the  genuine  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  or  have  done  more  for  the  highest  interests  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  than  the  pious  Puritans.  New  Eng- 
land, in  the  best  aspects  of  its  character  and  condition, 
is  what  the  influence  of  the  Puritans  has  made  it.  And 
it  is  well  known  that  Puritans  have  always  been  averse 
to  ceremonies; — perhnps  they  have  carried  their  aver- 
sion to  an  extreme.  In  New  England,  the  religion  of 
the  Puritans  has  been  the  prevailing  religion,  and  it  ivas 
the  established  religion.  And  so  far,  at  least,  as  Massa- 
chusetts is  concerned,  other  forms  of  religion  are  secta- 
rian, and  other  denominations  are  Dissenters.  Now  the 
connection  of  the  character,  institutions  and  prosperity 
of  New  England  with  the  plain  manners  and  simple  re- 
ligious rites  of  its  inhabitants,  is  not  accidental;  but  is 
founded  in  the  nature  of  the  mind,  and  the  nature  of 
Christianity.     Other  things   being  equal,  plain   Chris- 


150  LECTURE    VI, 

tians,  with  simple  religious  observances, — I  mean,  just 
so  simple,  as  they  are  set  forth  to  be  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,— are  more  likely  to  worship  God  in  spirit  and  in 
truth,  and  attain  to  eminence  in  piety,  than  those  who 
are  occupied  and  encumbered  with  a  multitude  of  reli- 
gious forms  and  ceremonies. 

But  there  is  another  source  of  knowledge,  which  I 
would  not  overlook.  Job  said  ;  "  Ask  now  the  beasts, 
and  they  shall  teach  thee ;  and  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and 
they  shall  tell  thee :  or  speak  to  the  earth,  and  it  shall 
instruct  thee."  I  say  too,  ask  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
and  they  shall  impart  some  profitable  knowledge  in  re- 
gard to  the  present  subject.  The  works  of  God  in  crea- 
tion and  providence,  are  stamped  with  wonderful  majes- 
ty and  simplicity.  The  majesty  of  the  divine  works  is  a 
real  majesty,  consisting  in  their  own  nature  and  extent, 
and  not  arising  from  anything  like  pomp  or  ceremonial, 
intended  to  make  an  artificial  display.  The  works  of 
God  are  unostentatious  and  simple.  They  are  just  what 
they  are,  never  putting  on  any  outward  appearances  of 
grandeur  for  the  sake  of  impression.  The  Sun  is  a 
great  and  glorious  object,  suited  to  fill  beholders  with 
wonder  and  joy.  "  His  going  forth  is  from  the  end  of 
the  heaven,  and  his  circuit  unto  the  ends  of  it ;  and 
there  is  nothing  hid  from  the  heat  thereof."  But  see 
how  silently  and  unostentatiously  he  moves  and  shines, 
and  how  modestly  he  conceals  almost  all  his  greatness 
and  splendor  from  our  view.  Though  many  hundred 
thousands  of  times  as  large  as  this  whole  world  of  ours, 
he  presents  himself  to  our  view  as  but  little  larger  than  a 
man's  hand.  So  it  is  with  the  whole  solar  system.  Who 
can  comprehend  its  sublimity  and  grandeur?     But  what 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  151 

perfect  simplicity  appears  in  every  part.  Stand  and 
gaze  upon  the  moon  and  stars  in  a  clear  evening  sky. 
There  is  no  ostentation,  no  noise.  It  is  simple,  silent 
majesty. — The  worlds  around  us  are  all  in  rapid  and 
various  motion :  but  they  suffer  not  their  motion  to  be 
seen,  though  gazed  upon  ever  so  intensely.  The  crea- 
ted Universe  is  full  of  greatness  and  glory.  But  it  has 
no  ceremony.  So  far  from  putting  on  an  artificial  ex- 
terior to  make  a  display  of  its  intrinsic  excellence,  it 
seems  rather  to  take  pains  to  hide  its  excellence  from 
our  eyes.     This  is  God's  manner  of  working. 

And  how  is  it  with  the  sublimest  works  which  man 
has  been  enabled  to  perform, — I  mean  miraculous  works? 
Read  the  story  of  what  took  place  in  Egypt.  Moses 
was  engaged  in  bringing  great  and  marvellous  things  to 
pass.  But  how  simple  his  appearance,  and  his  manner 
of  action.  He  did  not  assume  the  gorgeous  apparel  of 
a  young  Egyptian  Prince,  to  gain  the  admiration  of  the 
people.  He  did  indeed  make  use  of  a  few  outward 
signs.  But  how  plain  and  simple  they  were.  He  had 
a  rod  or  staff  in  his  hand ;  and  when  about  to  work  a 
miracle,  he  merely  stretched  out  that  rod,  in  obedience 
to  the  divine  command,  and  as  a  sign  of  the  divine 
power.  This  was  the  amount  of  the  ceremony  which 
Moses  used. 

Consider  the  case  of  Naaman,  the  Syrian,  who  came 
with  great  pomp  to  Elisha  to  be  healed  of  his  leprosy, 
and  expected  that  Elisha  would  be  as  pompous  as  he, 
and  would  come  out  majestically,  and  stand  and  call 
upon  the  name  of  his  God,  and  move  his  hand  over  the 
place,  and  so  recover  the  leper.  Of  course,  he  was 
greatly  disappointed  at  the  simplicity  and  plainness  of 


152  LECTURE    Vi. 

the  Prophet,  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  pomp  and  cer- 
emony, and  only  said,  "  wash,  and  be  clean." 

What  majesty  and  glory  marked  the  works  of  Christ ! 
But  how  little  ceremony  and  display  appeared !  His 
coming  was  not  with  outward  show,  but  with  divine 
power.  He  spake,  and  it  was  done.  He  said  to  the 
sick,  be  healed, — to  the  dead,  come  forth, — to  the  bois- 
terous winds  and  waves,  be  still.  Once  he  used  what 
may  be  called  a  ceremony,  or  outward  sign.  But  it  was 
exceedingly  simple.  He  wet  a  little  clay,  and  put  it  on 
the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  and  told  him  to  go  and  wash 
in  the  pool  of  Siloam. — The  Apostles  imitated  their  Lord 
and  Master,  and  wrought  miracles  in  the  most  simple, 
unostentatious  manner  possible, — just  speaking  a  word, 
or  laying  on  their  hand,  as  a  token  of  their  dependence 
on  God,  and  their  expectation  of  his  agency  in  accom- 
plishing the  miraculous  works. 

By  these  remarkable  instances  of  divine  works  we 
are  taught,  that  the  greatest  and  best  things,  and  things 
intended  to  make  the  deepest  and  most  sacred  impres- 
sion on  the  human  mind,  may  be  accomplished,  and 
are  accomplished,  without  ceremony  and  show.  By  the 
divine  works  themselves,  unaccompanied  by  any  magni- 
ficent signs,  or  any  signs  whatever,  except  those  which 
are  merely  sufficient  to  direct  our  thoughts  to  the  Al- 
mighty Agent, — by  these  works  themselves,  the  most  sub- 
lime truths  are  inculcated,  and  the  most  salutary  and 
devout  emotions  excited. 

And  why  is  not  the  same  true  in  regard  to  our  pres- 
ent subject, — the  worship,  the  institutions  and  rites  of 
our  religion?  I  might  reason  on  the  subject;  but  I 
choose  to  go  where  a  clearer  light  shines,  than  human 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  153 

reasoning  can  afford,  and  where  an  example  is  presen- 
ted, of  higher  authority,  than  all  the  usages  of  ancient 
or  modern  times.  I  go  directly  to  the  icord  of  God, — 
to  the  New  Testament,  where  we  find  truth  unmixed 
with  error,  and  where  the  Christian  institutions  and  rites 
are  set  before  us  in  their  original  purity, — just  as  they 
came  from  our  Great  High  Priest,  the  Head  of  the 
church,  and  just  as  they  were  administered  by  him  and 
by  his  inspired  Apostles.  Whatever,  and  however  vari- 
ous, may  be  the  opinions  and  practices  of  uninspired 
men,  and  however  diffictilt  it  may  be  for  us,  in  some 
cases,  to  determine  from  them  what  is  right  and  what  is 
wrong  ;  this  one  thing  is  clear  ; — that  so  far  as  we  con- 
form, in  judgment  and  practice,  to  the  instructions  and 
example  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  we  are  on  the  ground 
of  truth  and  safety. 

Read  then  the  history  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles; 
and  learn  what  you  can,  of  their  raiment  and  their  per- 
sonal appearance.  Begin  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  of  the  church.  How  was  it  with  him 
in  regard  to  clothing  and  personal  appearance?  A  pe- 
culiar and  very  splendid  dress,  you  know,  was  prescribed 
for  the  High  Priest  under  the  Mosaic  economy.  Did 
Jesus  assume  that  peculiar  and  splendid  dress?  Did  he 
assume  any  part  of  it,  or  make  any  approach  to  it?  Did 
he  put  on  any  robes,  by  which  he  was  distinguished 
from  the  common,  people  ?  Far  from  it.  Jesus  wore 
no  sacerdotal  dress;  and  no  crown  adorned  his  head, 
except  a  crown  of  thorns.  He  was  indeed  a  High  Priest, 
and  he  was  a  King,  and  that  by  way, of  eminence;  and 
he  was  a  Jew  too.  Why  then  did  he  not  assume  the 
insicrnia  of  a  Jewish  Hi^h  Priest  and  a  Jewish  King  ?— • 


154  LECTURE     VI. 

Because  he  was  a  High  Priest  of  another  order, — a 
spiritual  High  Priest; — and  because  he  was  a  King  of 
another  character, — a  King,  whose  kingdom  was  not  of 
this  world  ; — because  he  was  so  much  superior  to  a  Jew- 
ish High  Priest  and  King,  that  it  would  have  been  de- 
grading to  his  character  and  office,  to  wear  the  garments 
prescribed  for  them.  Such  was  his  personal  excellence 
and  worthiness,  and  so  dignified  and  glorious  his  work, 
that  he  neither  used  nor  needed  any  outward  splendor 
to  recommend  him,  and  to  gain  for  him  the  love  and 
veneration  of  his  people.  And  how  was  it  with  his 
Apostles,  who  held  the  highest  office  in  his  church,  and 
were  set  up  as  examples  to  all  gospel  ministers?  How 
was  it  with  the  holy  Apostles  ?  Did  they  put  on  any 
rich  and  sacerdotal  robes,  distinguishing  them  from  oth- 
er men  ?  Did  their  Lord  prescribe  any  such  robes,  as 
necessary  or  proper  to  their  office?  Not  so.  They 
needed  no  such  external  distinctions,  no  peculiar  insig- 
nia of  their  Apostolic  office.  They  needed  nothing  to 
secure  the  esteem  and  veneration  of  men,  but  the  supe- 
rior excellence  of  their  character  and  works,  the  dignity 
of  truth  and  virtue, — the  likeness  of  Christ.  When 
Paul  appeared  before  Felix,  and  before  Agrippa,  to  make 
his  defence;  would  it  have  added  anything  to  his  per- 
sonal dignity,  or  to  the  power  of  his  address,  had  he 
worn  the  splendid  dress  of  a  Jewish  High  Priest,  or  a 
Popish  Cardinal? 

You  see  now  how  it  is  with  Jesus,  our  great  exemplar, 
and  with  his  Apostles.  They  made  use  of  nothing  them- 
selves in  the  way  of  external  distinetion  ;  and  they  pre- 
scribed nothing  for  others.  Nowhere  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament have  we  any  precept  or  example  either  of  Christ 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  155 

or  his  Apostles,  in  favor  of  anything  ornamental  in  our 
dress  or  outward  appearance,  as  a  badge  of  the  sacred 
office. 

What  shall  we  say  then  of  the  costly  and  showy  attire, 
worn  in  after  ages  by  the  Dignitaries  of  the  church  of 
Rome  ?  Did  they  think  it  a  proper  expression  of  Chris- 
tian humility  1  Or  was  it  an  affectation  of  the  pomp  of 
Oriental  courts  ?  Or  was  it  an  attempt  to  copy  after  a 
Jewish  ceremonial  which  had  been  done  away  ?  Or 
was  it  intended  as  a  substitute  for  the  excellence  of  truth 
and  holiness?  And  has  not  too  great  a  part  of  the  rich, 
Pontifical  attire  of  the  Romish  Bishops  been  retained  in 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  ? 

Here,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  which  I  claim,  of 
remarking  freely  on  whatever  is  of  human  origin,  I  turn 
to  the  form  of  consecrating  a  Bishop.  That  part  of  the 
service  which  consists  of  addresses  and  prayers,  is,  with 
one  exception,  just.  But  when  I  come  to  the  ceremo- 
nial as  to  the  Bishop's  dress,  and  find  that,  according  to 
the  particular  direction  of  the  Rubric,  the  Bishop,  who 
is  presented  for  consecration,  is  to  be  vested  with  a  Sur- 
plice, or  White  garb,  I  pause  a  little,  and  yield  to  my 
propensity, — which  I  hope  is  not  one  of  the  forbidden 
propensities, — to  inquire  into  the  reason  of  things.  Ac- 
cording to  the  common  custom  of  dress,  we  should  think 
that  an  outside  garment  of  white  linen,  muslin,  or  lawn, 
worn  in  a  public  assembly,  would  be  far  more  suitable 
for  a  woman,  than  for  a  man.  We  must  look  then  for 
some  other  ground  of  the  ceremony,  besides  the  influ- 
ence of  common  usage.  Now  I  should  be  apt  to  think, 
that  the  white  color  of  the  garment  must  be  intended  to 
denote  i\\Q  peculiar  purity  or  holiness  of  the  ministtrial 


ISB  LECTURE    VI. 

character  or  offi,ce.  But  I  am  rnet  with  a  difficulty  here; 
for,  in  the  services  of  the  Sabbath,  the  white  dress  is 
worn  only  through  a  part  of  the  exercises,  and  then  is 
changed  for  a  black  dress;  and  if  the  color  of  the  gar- 
ments is  meant  to  indicate  moral  qualities,  and  if  white 
indicates  purity  or  holiness;  then,  as  black  is  the  oppo- 
site of  white,  it  would  seem  to  indicate  the  opposite  of 
purity.  Besides,  it  would  be  a  question  which  I  could 
not  readily  solve,  why  the  ministerial  character  or  office 
should  be  considered  more  pure  and  holy  in  one  part  of 
the  public  service,  than  in  another  part.  I  must  then 
regard  the  use  of  the  white  gown,  and  the  change  from 
white  to  black  as  a  custom  sui  generis,  and  as  a  total 
departure  from  the  custom  which  in  all  other  cases  gov- 
erns the  dress  of  men  in  religious  assemblies.  And  the 
reasons  of  all  this,  though  far  from  being  obvious  to 
common  minds,  may  perhaps  be  fully  set  forth  in  some 
ancient  or  modern  document,  which  satisfactorily  ex- 
plains the  various  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  as  the  Homilies  of  Cyril  explain  some  of  the 
ceremonies  which  prevailed  in  his  day,  particularly  those 
which  pertained  to  the  rite  of  Baptism- — Or  perhaps  I 
am  going  beyond  my  province.  For  the  grounds  of  this 
peculiar  custom  of  dress  may  perhaps  be  such,  that  nei- 
ther curiosity  nor  reason  has  any  right  to  meddle  with 
them. 

1  shall  however  take  the  liberty  to  proceed, — holding 
myself  ready  to  be  checked  or  corrected,  as  the  case 
may  require. — After  various  religious  services,  the  Bish- 
op is  to  put  on  the  rest  of  the  Episcopal  habit.  Several 
additional  ceremonials  have  been  used  in  the  consecra- 
tion of  an  English  Bishop,  particularly  putting  a  mitre 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  157 

or  crown  on  his  head,  and  setting  him  on  a  little  throne. 
The.se  however  are  not  adopted  in  this  country,  and  I 
know  not  whether  the  throne  is  continued  in  England, 
except,  as  I  am  told,  for  the  Archbishop.  But  the  Ru- 
bric not  only  prescribes  a  peculiar  dress  for  a  Bishop, 
but,  what  is  more,  requires  a  part  of  that  official  dress  to 
be  put  on  before  the  service  of  consecration  begins,  and 
the  rest  during  the  service,  just  befl)re  the  laying  on  of 
hands.  Now  if  I  were  to  apply  my  reason  to  the  sub- 
ject, 1  should  say,  if  the  whole  of  the  Bishop's  habit  is 
not  put  on  before  the  beginning  of  the  public  service, 
why  any  part  of  it  ?  Or  I  would  rather  ask,  why  the 
whole  Episcopal  habit  is  not  put  on  before  repairing  to 
the  church  ?  Why  so  much  ado  about  the  Bishop's  dress, 
in  the  midst  of  the  solemn  public  service  ?  But  here  too 
reasoning  may  be  out  of  place.  I  repair  then  to  the  in- 
fiillible  standard.  And  I  find  that  all  this  ceremonial 
about  the  Bishop's  attire  is  an  addition  to  the  instruc- 
tions and  example  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  to  the 
simple  institutions  of  the  gospel.  And  farther  :  if,  on 
the  ground  of  ancient  usage,  so  much  ceremonial  as  this 
is  required,  why  not  more?  Why  not  invest  a  Bishop 
completely  with  the  gorgeous  apparel  of  a  Jewish  High 
Priest,  or  of  the  highest  ecclesiastics  at  Rome  ?  At 
least,  why  not  retain  the  English  practice  of  crowning 
the  Bishop  ? 

But  in  regard  to  this,  matter  of  dress,  the  question 
again  forces  itself  upon  my  thoughts; — did  Jesus  wear 
anything  like  the  peculiar  attire  of  a  Bishop  ?  And  did 
he  ever  make  any  alteration  in  his  attire  during  public 
worship  ?  It  may  be  said  that  Jesus  was  poor,  and  that 
he  had  not  the  means  of  procuring  costly  robes.     He 


158 


LECTURE    V 


was  indeed  poor  ;  but  his  poverty  was  voluntary.  The 
riches  of  the  universe  were  at  his  command.  Besides, 
if  any  peculiar  dress,  any  external  badge  of  his  high  of- 
fice, had  been  offered  to  him  ;  would  he  have  accepted 
it  ?  Would  he  not  have  rebuked  those  who  offered  it, 
as  he  did  those  who  wished  to  crown  him  as  a  King, 
saying,  "  my  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

I  go  also  to  the  Apostles.  Did  they  on  any  occasion 
appear  in  a  peculiar  attire,  like  what  I  have  noticed? 
Paul  doubtless  was  a  Bishop.  Did  Paul  wear  it  ?  Pe- 
ter was  a  Bishop  ;  and  they  say  he  was  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  ; — and  doubtless  he  was  as  truly  great  and  worthy 
of  honor,  as  any  who  call  themselves  his  successors. 
But  did  Peter,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  the  icorthy  Pre- 
decessor of  all  the  Popes  /—did  he  wear  a  splendid,  pon- 
tifical attire  ? — Paul  and  Peter  and  all  the  Apostles  were 
plain  men  ; — they  were  decent,  honorable,  wise  men, 
and  they  had  a  good  tnste ;  but  they  were  plain  men, — 
men  of  great  simplicity,  and  averse  to  outward  decora- 
tions and  vain  show.  Paul  and  Peter  gave  their  united 
and  decided  testimony  against  such  decorations  even  in 
women,  in  whom  they  must  be  allowed  to  be  proper,  if 
proper  at  all.  See  1  Tim.  2  :  9.  1  Pet.  3  :  3.  Had  there 
been  occasion  for  it,  they  would  doubtless  have  given  a 
still  stronger  testimony  against  unusual  decorations  in 
the  dress  of  men. 

Shall  1  ask  you  just  to  look  at  the  scene  which  has, 
more  than  once,  presented  itself  to  my  imagination, — an 
imagination  not  endued  with  the  o-ift  of  extravncrance,  or 
with  the  power  of  creating  things  out  of  nothing. — On 
the  one  hand,  then,  turn  your  eyes  to  Paul,  and  Peter, 
and  John,  and  James,  and  Jesus  their  Lord  among  them, 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  159 

— all  clothed  with  plain,  decent,  simple  apparel.  Be- 
hold attentively  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  man, — 
and  those  ministers  and  Apostles  of  his. — On  the  other 
hand,  see,  standing  near  them,  four  Catholic  Bishops, 
and  the  Pope, — or  four  English  Bishops,  and  the  Arch- 
bishop,—  arrayed  in  gorgeous  robes,  the  insignia  of 
their  high  office.  Mark  the  contrast ! — the  plain,  hum- 
ble appearance  of  those  on  one  side, — and  the  splen- 
did, magnificent  appearance  of  those  on  the  other  side. 
Who  would  suppose  that  Son  of  man,  so  meek  and 
lowly,  to  be  their  Supreme  Lord  and  King?  And 
who  would  suppose  that  those  Catholic  or  English  Bish- 
ops, thus  apparelled,  were  his  servants,  commissioned 
by  him,  and  receiving  all  power  and  authority,  and  all 
spiritual  blessings  from  him  ; — and  that  they  were  the 
successors  in  the  ministerial  office,  of  those  Apostles, — 
men  so  plain,  and  clothed  with  humility  1  Is  it  alleged, 
that  modern  Bishops  need  something  to  set  off  their 
character  and  office,  and  to  secure  the  respect  of  the 
multitude  ?  But  why  did  not  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
need  such  an  exterior  to  recommend  them  ?  Ah  !  you 
say,  they  had  the  rccommendathm  of  high  sanctity  of 
character, — the  recommendation  of  divine  truth, — the  ma- 
jesty of  truth.  Well  then,  let  all  the  servants  of  Christ 
and  successors  of  the  Apostles  be  invested,  as  I  trust 
some  of  them  are,  with  the  same  sanctity  of  character, 
and  the  same  majesty  of  divine  truth  ;  and  this  shall  be 
their  recommendation, — this  shall  secure  for  them  the 
veneration  of  the  world,  and  the  love  and  confidence  of 
the  good. 

The  following  canon  of  the  church  of  England,  pub- 
lished, Ithink,  in  the  time  of  King  James,  shows  how 


160  LECTURE    VI. 

much  was  thought  of  a  peculiar  dress,  for  the  very  pur- 
pose  of  recommending  the  Bishops  and  the  inferior  clergy 
to  popnlarfcawr.     The  canon  is  as  follows. 

"  The  true,  ancient  and  flourishing  churches  of  Christ, 
being  ever  desirous  that  their  Prelacy  and  clergy  might 
be  had  as  well  in  outicard  reverence^  as  otherwise  regard- 
ed for  the  worthiness  of  their  ministry,  did  think  it  fit, 
by  a  prescript  form  of  decent  and  comely  apparel,  to 
have  them  known  to  the  people,  and  thereby  to  receive  the 
honor — due  to  the  ministers  of  Almighty  God ;  we  there- 
fore, following  their  grave  judgment,  and  the  ancient 
custom  of  the  church  of  England,  and  hoping  that  in 
time  newfangleness  of  apparel  will  die  of  itself,  do  ap- 
point, that  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  shall  not  inter- 
mit to  use  the  accustomed  apparel  of  their  degrees." — 
That  apparel  had  been  exactly  prescribed  before.  The 
canon  then  proceeds  to  direct  that  all  Deans,  Archdea- 
cons, Prebendaries,  and  Doctors  of  Divinity  shall  wear 
gowns  with  such  particular  collars  and  sleeves,  together 
with  hoods  or  tippets,  and  square  caps.  The  same  ca- 
non also  prescribes  the  cloaks  which  the  inferior  eccle- 
siastics shall  wear  on  their  journies,  the  dress  they  shall 
use  in  private  houses,  and  even  the  caps  they  shall  wear 
in  the  night. 

On  this  canon  I  have  two  remarks  to  make.  First. 
If  ecclesiastical  Rulers  undertake  to  regulate  the  dress 
of  ministers,  whether  of  the  higher  or  lower  order,  by  a 
minute  and  exact  legislation,  how  undignified  and  frivo- 
lous their  enactments  are  likely  to  be!  Second.  If 
ministers  possess  the  requisite  qualifications,  they  will 
of  course  carefully  conform  to  decent  custom,  and  will 
use  the  dress,  which  is  generally  esteemed  most  suitable 


LITURGY CEREMONIALS.  161 

for  men  in  their  condition.  And  who  can  doubt  that 
it  is  perfectly  safe  to  leave  the  matter  to  be  regulated  in 
this  way  ?  Well  qualified  ministers  of  the  gospel  will 
always  appear  in  a  becoming  dress.  It  will  not,  howev- 
er, be  their  dress,  but  the  worthiness  of  their  character 
and  the  sacrediiess  of  their  office,  which  will  procure 
for  them  the  high  esteem  and  love  of  the  people.  Should 
any  minister  neglect  to  wear  a  decent  and.  honorable  ap- 
parel,— for  example,  should  he  appear  in  the  pulpit  with 
a  white  coat,  white  gown,  or  a  red  jacket,  he  would  prove 
himself  essentially  wanting  in  the  decorum  of  the  minis- 
terial character,  and  ought  most  surely  to  be  dealt  with 
as  an  offender. 

But  these  remarks  on  ministerial  dress  may  have  been 
carried  too  far ;  and  in  reference  to  the  whole  subject  I 
may  be  reminded  of  the  adage,  cle  gustihus  non  dispu- 
tandum  est, — there  is  no  arguing  about  matters  of  taste. 
So  be  it.  I  will  freely  concede  to  others,  what  I  claim 
for  myself, — not  only  the  rights  of  conscience,  but  the 
rights  of  taste.  And  I  will  close  with  saying,  that  my 
taste,  which  has  been  formed  on  the  model  of  my  Puritan 
ancestors,  and  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  is  de- 
cidedly in  favor  of  a  plain,  simple  apparel  for  ministers, 
and  plain,  simple  rites  and  forms  in  religious  worship. 


11 


LECTURE    VII. 


In  this  Lecture,  I  shall  state  my  last  objection  to  the 
Episcopal  scheme.  But  it  is  an  objection  to  that  scheme, 
as  held  hy  the  High  church  party.  In  what  constitutes 
the  substance  of  my  objection,  I  shall  therefore  have  the 
satisfaction  of  going  in  company  with  a  great  part  of  the 
Episcopal  denomination,  both  in  this  country,  and  in 
England.  Several  distinguished  Episcopalians  who  have 
rejected  the  peculiarities  of  High  church  men,  have 
been  mentioned  in  previous  Lectures.  I  have  no  means 
of  judging  on  which  side  the  majority  is  found, — though 
it  is  said  to  be,  especially  among  laymen,  in  opposition 
to  High  Churchism.  I  hope  it  will  be  found  to  be  so 
among  the  clergy  also.  For  it  is  my  deliberate  convic- 
tion, that  the  exclusive  principle  held  by  the  High  church 
party,  is  more  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  and 
more  odious  in  the  sight  of  God,  than  all  the  other  errors 
which  can  be  imputed  to  the  Episcopal  branch  of  the 
Christian  Church.  And  unless  my  conceptions  of  God, 
and  Christ,  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  progress  of  religion,  are  all 
wrong,  and  totally  wrong;  the  time  is  at  hand, — (the 
Lord  hasten  it !)— when  the  High  church  principles, — 
not  those  who  maintain  them, — shall  be  swept  away ; 
and  shall  be  remembered, — as  the  worst  things  in  the 


164  LECTUREVII. 

history  of  the  church  are  now  remembered, — with  as- 
tonishment and  shame.  And  as  there  are  some  parts  of 
Ihe  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  which  seem  to  give  too 
much  support  to  the  principles,  against  which  I  so  strong- 
ly object ;  I  cannot  but  hope  that  the  parts  referred  to 
will  be  subjected  to  a  thorough  revision. 

I  have  already  said,  that  there  are  many  Episcopalians 
of  the  highest  reputation,  who  utterly  reject  the  princi- 
ples held  by  the  High  church  party ;  and  who  regard  it 
as  totally  unscriptural,  and  some  of  them  say  "  utterly 
foolish,"  to  claim  any  exclusive  divine  right  for  Episco- 
pal ordination,  or  to  refuse  to  acknowledge  other  com- 
munions as  churches  of  Christ.  Goode,  speaking  of 
ordination  by  Bishops  alone,  as  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, says ;  "  I  admit  that  there  is  not  any  Scripture 
proof  for  it."  And  he  adds; — "as  the  proof  is  not  to 
be  found  in  Scripture,  so  antiquity  is  divided  with  re- 
spect to  it.  And  moreover, — though  it  is  the  doctrine 
of  our  church,  yet  it  is  held  by  her  with  an  allowance 
for  those  who  may  differ  from  her  on  the  point,  and  not 
as  if  the  observance  of  it  was  requisite  by  divine  com- 
mand, and  essential  to  the  validity  of  all  ordinations; — 
though,  for  the  preservation  of  the  full  ecclesiastical  reg- 
ularity of  her  own  orders,  she  has  made  it  essential  to 
the  ministers  of  her  own  commimion."  If  Episcopalians 
at  large  would  adopt  this  candid  and  rational  principle, 
and  act  upon  it,  my  strongest  objection  against  their  ec- 
clesiastical system  would  vanish  at  once. 

In  order  to  do  full  justice  to  those  who  reject  the 
Hio-h  church  scheme,  I  make  a  quotation  from  another 
excellent  writer,  a  distinguished  layman  of  the  church 
of  England,  to  whose  views  many  distinguished  laymen 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  165^ 

of  the  Episcopal  church  in  America  will  give  their  cor- 
dial assent.  "  I  am  aware,"  he  says,  "  that  in  St.  Je- 
rome's time,  there  existed  generally,  though  by  no  means 
universally,  this  difference  between  the  Bishop  and  the 
Presbyters,  viz.,  that  to  the  former  was  then  confided  the 
power  of  ordination.  The  transition  from  perfect  equal- 
ity to  absolute  superiority  was  not  suddenly  effected  ; — 
it  was  the  growth  of  time :  not  of  years,  but  of  centuries." 
He  says,  that  ''  Episcopacy,  in  the  modern  acceptation 
of  the  term,  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles; 
and  that,  however  expedient — such  an  institution  might 
be,  it  cannot  plead  the  sanction  of  Apostolic  appointment 
or  example." — "  Thus  much  at  least,"  he  says,  "  is  cer- 
tain, namely,  that  the  government  of  each  church,  in- 
cluding the  ordination  of  ministers,  was  at  first  in  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery; — that  when  one  of  that  body 
was  raised  to  the  office  of  President,  and  on  whom  the 
title  of  Bishop  was  conferred,  it  was  simply  by  the  elec- 
tion of  the  other  Presbyters,  whose  appointment  was 
final,  requiring  no  confirmation  or  consecration  at  the 
hands  of  any  other  Prelates."  He  adds :  "  If  then  all 
this  be  so,  there  seems  to  be  an  end  to  the  question  ;  for 
under  whatever  circumstances  the  privilege  of  ordaining 
was  afterwards  committed  to  the  Bishop,  he  could  of 
necessity  receive  no  more  than  it  was  in  their  power  to 
bestow,  from  whom  he  received  it,  who  were  co-ordinate 
Presbyters,  not  superiors.  At  whatever  period,  there- 
fore, it  was  adopted,  and  with  whatever  uniformity  it 
might  be  continued,  and  whatever  value  or  even  author- 
ity it  might  hence  acquire  ;  still,  as  an  Apostolic  institu- 
tion it  has  none  :  there  is  a  gap  which  can  never  be  fill- 
ed ;  or  rather,  the  link  by  which  the  whole  must  be  sus- 


166  LECTURE    VII. 

pended  is  wanting,  and  can  never  be  supplied.  There 
can  be  no  Apostolical  succession  of  that  which  had  no 
Apostolical  existence." 

As  it  is  such  a  pleasure  to  dwell  upon  these  honest 
and  honorable  principles  of  Episcopalians,  I  shall  add  to 
the  above  a  passage  from  Bishop  Hoadley.  Speaking  of 
the  Exclusive  claims  of  High  churchmen,  that  excellent 
Prelate  says  :  "  I  do  not  love,  I  confess,  so  much  as  to 
repeat  the  principal  branches  of  their  beloved  scheme  ; 

they  are  so  different from  the  voice  of  the  gospel. 

When  they  would  claim  you,"  (that  is,  seek  to  obtain 
you,) — "  as  their  fellow-laborers  the  Papists  do, — by 
telling  you,  that  you  cannot  hope  for  the  favor  of  God, 

but  in  the  strictest  communion  with  their  church, 

that  God  hath  himself  hung  your  salvation  upon  this 
nicety ;  that  he  dispenses  none  of  his  favors  or  graces, 
but  by  the  hands  of  them,"  (i.  e.  Bishops,)  "  and  their 
subordinate  priests ;  that  you  cannot  be  authoritatively 
blessed  or  released  from  your  sins,  but  by  them  who  are 
the  regular  priests ;  that  churches  under  other  Bishops, 
(i.  e.  other  than  in  regular  succession,)  are  schismatical 
conventicles,  made  up  of  excommunicated  persons,  both 
clergy  and  laity, — out  of  God's  church,  as  well  as  out  of 
his  favor ; — I  say,  when  such  arguments  as  these  are 
urged,  you  need  only  to  have  recourse  to  a  general  an- 
swer to  this  whole  heap  of  scandal  and  defamation  upon 
the  will  of  God,  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  the  church  of 
England  in  particular  ; — that  you  have  not  so  learned 
Christ,  or  the  design  of  his  gospel,  or  even  the  founda- 
tion of  this  particular  part  of  his  church,  reformed  and 
established  in  England.  The  following  arguments  will 
justify  you,  which  ought  therefore  to  be  frequently  in 


HIGH    CHURCH   PRINCIPLE.  167 

the  thoughts  of  all  who  have  any  value  for  the  most  im- 
portant points  : — God  is  just,  and  equal,  and  good ;  and 
as  sure  as  he  is,  he  cannot  put  the  salvation  of  any  man 
upon  what  he  himself  has  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  any 
man  upon  earth  to  be  entirely. satisfied  in.  It  hath  not 
pleased  God  in  his  Providence,  to  keep  iip  any  proof  of 
the  least  pr  oh  ability ,  or  moral  possibility  of  a  regular, 
uninterrupted  succession*^ 

The  views  of  such  writers,  so  directly  opposed  to  the 
High  church  claims,  are,  I  think,  fully  sustained  by 
Scripture,  and  by  ecclesiastical  history,  and  well  agree 
with  the  enlarged  spirit  of  Christian  candor  and  charity. 
They  have  the  evident  stamp  of  truth  and  love.  But  the 
High  church  principle  cannot  be  plainly  stated,  without 
being  seen  at  once  to  be  repugnant  to  the  genius  of  the 
Christian  religion.  And  I  do  not  wonder,  that  so  much 
is  done  to  divert  attention  from  its  unseemly  qualities, 
and  that  such  reluctance  is  generally  shown  to  bring  it 
out  in  all  its  length  and  breadth  to  public  view.  We 
allege  that  it  un-churches  all  non-Episcopal  denomina- 
tions, and  refuses  to  acknowledge  those,  who  are  out  of 
the  pale  of  the  Episcopal  church,  as  possessing  the  char- 
acter of  Christians,  or  as  being  the  members  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom.  The  advocates  of  the  High  church 
principle  try  to  evade  this  charge  by  saying,  that  they 
make  allowance  for  those  who  are  kept  out  of  their 
church  by  involuntary  and  unavoidable  ignorance.  But 
we  cannot,  if  we  would,  avail  ourselves  of  this  allowance. 
We  have  had  the  necessary  means  of  information.  We 
have  read  the  Bible,  and  ecclesiastical  history  with  refe- 
rence to  their  claims.  We  have  read  their  books.  And 
the  more  we  have  read  and  thought,  the  more  fully  have 


168  •    LECTURE    VII, 

we  been  convinced,  that  their  system  has  no  solid  foun- 
dation. Now  my  question  is,  how  do  they  regard  us  ? 
— I  mean,  the  non-Episcopal  churches  and  ministers  of 
this  country.  How  do  they  regard  us,  who  are  Congre- 
gationalists,  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  and  Methodists, 
taken  just  as  we  are  ?  Do  they  acknowledge  the  church- 
es of  these  denominations  to  be  true  churches  of  Christ, 
and  their  ministers  to  be  true  ministers  of  Christ  ?  Do 
they  believe  that  these  non-Episcopal  ministers  have  a 
right  to  preach,  and  the  promise  of  a  divine  blessing  to 
attend  their  preaching  ;  and  that  the  ordinances  admin- 
istered by  them  are  valid  ?  If  they  do,  they  renounce  their 
High  church  principle.  But  the  claims  they  assert,  and 
the  arguments  they  use  in  support  of  those  claims,  all 
show,  that  they  do  not  mean  to  acknowledge  us  as  mak- 
ing any  part  of  the  true  ministry  or  church  of  Christ. 
Here  their  system  comes  out  to  view  in  all  its  narrow- 
ness and  enormity ! — a  small  part  of  American  Chris- 
tians, and  a  small  part  of  Protestant  Christians,  set 
themselves  up  to  he  the  only  true  church  of  Christ,  and 
their  ministers  as  the  only  ministers  of  Christ,  and  the 
ordinances  administered  by  them,  as  the  only  valid  ordi- 
nances ;  when  it  is  hnoicn  in  heaven  and  earth,  that  those 
whom  they  thus  disown,  are  as  manifestly  oicncd  of  God, 
and  have  as  much  evidence  of  God^s  gracious  presence 
and  approhation,  and  as  many  fruits  of  his  Spirit,  as 
they  themselves  ! 

It  would  certainly  be  natural  to  expect,  that  such  high 
and  exclusive  claims  as  those  above  mentioned,  would  be 
found  to  rest  on  the  basis  of  clear,  unquestionable  evi- 
dence. But  what  evidence  can  the  advocates  of  these 
claims  produce  ?    I  ask  for  one  passage  in  the  New  Tes- 


HIGH    CHURCH   PRINCIPLE.  169 

lament  which  plainly  teaches  or  implies,  that  no  man, 
whatever  his  qualifications,  and  whatever  else  he  may 
do,  can  be  a  true  minister  of  Christ,  without  being  or- 
dained by  a  Prelatical  Bishop.  I  ask  for  evidence, — for 
one  iota  of  evidence  from  Scripture,  that  a  Bishop  is 
anything  above  a  Presbyter,  or  a  Presbyter  anything  be- 
low a  Bishop ;  or  that  one  whom  Episcopalians  call  a 
Bishop,  has  a  whit  more  authority  to  ordain,  than  any 
other  gospel  minister  ;  or  that  he  can,  by  the  imposition 
of  hands,  impart  any  more  ministerial  authority  or  virtue, 
or  that  those  who  are  ordained  by  him  are,  in  truth,  and 
in  the  sight  of  God,  more  truly  or  more  completely  in- 
vested with  the  sacred  office,  than  those  who  are  ordain- 
ed by  others.  Nay,  I  hold  that  our  ecclesiastical  order 
is  far  more  conformed  to  the  pattern  of  the  Apostles  and 
their  immediate  successors,  than  the  Episcopal  order. 
The  evidence  of  this  from  Ecclesiastical  History  is,  in 
my  view,  so  clear  and  conclusive,  that  it  cannot  much 
longer  be  called  in  question  by  any  man,  who  has  the 
reputation  of  learning  and  candor.  To  say  the  least, 
the  evidence  against  the  existence  of  Prelacy  in  the  first 
Christian  churches  is  so  various  and  powerful,  that  it  may 
well  lead  all  Prelates,  as  it  does  some  of  them,  to  assert 
their  authority,  not  with  an  air  of  self-complacent  supe- 
riority, but  with  gentleness,  humility  and  candor.  Not 
a  few  of  them,  however,  being  fully  possessed  with  the 
idea  of  their  Apostolic  authority,  confidently  affirm,  that 
they  have  the  sole  right  to  ordain,  and  that  those  minis- 
ters, who  are  not  ordained  by  a  Prelate,  are  not  ordain- 
ed at  all,  and  of  course  are  not  gospel  ministers,  and 
have  no  right  to  preach,  or  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
or  to  do  any  part  of  the  ministerial  work ;  and  that,  if 


170  LECTURE    VII. 

they  undertake  the  work,  they  have  no  prospect  of  being 
acceptable  to  God,  or  profitable  to  men. — I  might  re- 
mind High  churchmen,  that  this  assumption  of  theirs  is 
not  founded,  more  or  less,  on  the  teachings  of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  or  of  those  who  were  the  immediate  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles.  I  might  remind  them,  that  their 
exclusive  claim  rests  not  upon  divine  inspiration,  but 
upon  human  tradition ; — not  upon  the  more  ancient  au- 
thority,— the  infallible  word  of  God,  or  the  practice  of 
the  churches  the  first  half  century  after  the  Apostles, — 
but  upon  the  less  ancient  authority, — the  authority  of 
fallible  men  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. — I  might 
remind  them  of  the  representation  of  such  an  author  as 
Mosheim,  namely,  that  in  the  infancy  of  the  Councils  in 
the  third  century,  "  the  Bishops  did  not  scruple  to  ac- 
knowledge, that  they  appeared  there  merely  as  the  min- 
isters or  legates  of  their  respective  churches ;  and  that 
they  were  in  fact  nothing  more  than  representatives  act- 
ing under  instructions ;  but  that  it  was  not  long  before 
this  humble  language  began,  by  little  and  little,  to  be  ex- 
changed for  a  loftier  tone ;  and  that  they,  at  length,  took 
it  upon  them  to  assert,  that  they  were  the  legitimate  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  might,  conse- 
quently, by  their  own  proper  authority,  dictate  to  the 
Christian  flock." — I  might  also  remind  them  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  high  Episcopal  pretensions  in  the  church  of 
England  ;  that  they  were  unknown  for  a  long  time  after 
the  establishment  of  that  church ;  and  that  they  originat- 
ed about  the  time  when  the  Puritans  settled  in  this  coun- 
try. Hallam,  in  his  Constitutional  History  of  England, 
— which  Macaulay  speaks  of  as  the  most  impartial  book 
he  ever  read, — says :  "  Laud  and  his  party  began,  about 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  171 

the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  by  preaching  the  divine 
right,  as  it  is  called,  or  absolute  indispensability  of  Epis- 
copacy ;  a  doctrine,  of  wJiich  the  first  traces,  as  I  ap- 
prehend,  are  found  ccbout  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 
They  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  succession, 
regularly  derived  from  the  Apostles.  They  drew  an  in- 
ference from  this  tenet,  that  ordinations  by  Presbyters 
were,  in  all  cases,  null."  They  began  now  to  speak  of 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  "  as  aliens,  to  whom  they  were 
not  at  all  related,  and  as  schismatics,  with  whom  they 
held  no  communion ;  nay,  as  wanting  the  very  essence 
of  Christian  society.  This  again  brought  them  nearer, 
by  irresistible  consequence,  to  the  disciples  of  Rome." — 
I  might  also  refer  to  the  more  recent  representation  of 
Neander,  whose  learning,  impartiality,  and  sound  judg- 
ment are  too  well  known  to  need  any  recommendation 
from  me.  He  thinks  that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
events  in  the  Primitive  church,  a  distinction  among 
Christian  ministers,  who  were  originally  of  the  same 
rank,  was  introduced,  and  that  one  of  them  gradually 
obtained  preeminence  over  his  colleagues ;  and  by  rea- 
son of  that  peculiar  oversight  which  he  exercised  over 
the  whole  community,  was  designated  by  the  name  Bish- 
op, which  was  at  first  applied  to  all  Presbyters  indiscri- 
minately. He  says,  however,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
any  Apostle  introduced  this  change  ;  much  less  that  he 
authorized  it  as  a  perpetual  ordinance.  But  he  candid- 
ly allows,  that  such  a  change  in  the  mode  of  administer- 
ing the  government  of  the  church,  resulting  from  pecu- 
liar circumstances,  may  have  been  introduced  as  a  salu- 
tary expedient,  without  implying  any  departure  from  the 
purity  of  the  Christian  spirit.     But  he  says :  "  When 


172  LECTURE    VII. 

the  doctrine  is, — that  Bishops  are,  by  divine  right,  the 
head  of  the  church,  and  invested  with  the  government 
of  the  same  ; — that  they  are  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  by  this  succession  exercise  apostolical  authori- 
ty ;  that  they  are  the  medium  through  which,  in  conse- 
quence of  that  ordination  which  they  have  received 
merely  in  an  outward  manner,  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  all 
time  to  come,  must  be  transmitted  to  the  church ; — 
when  this  doctrine,  which  gradually  gained  currency  in 
the  third  century,  becomes  the  doctrine  of  the  church, 
we  certainly  must  perceive,  in  these  assumptions,  a 
strong  corruption  of  the  purity  of  the  Christian  system. 
It  it  a  carnal  perversion  of  the  true  idea  of  the  Christian 
church.  It  is  falling  back  into  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  Instead  of  the  Christian  idea  of  a  church, 
based  on  inward  principles  of  communion,  and  extend- 
ing itself  by  means  of  these,  it  presents  us  with  the  image 
of  one, — resting  in  outward  ordinances,  and,  by  external 
rites,  seeking  to  promote  the  kingdom  of  God.  This 
entire  perversion  of  the  original  views  of  the  Christian 
church  was  itself  the  origin  of  the  whole  system  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion, — the  germ,  from  which  sprung 
the  popery  of  the  dark  ages." 

This  eminent  writer  would  have  "  no  controversy  with 
that  class  of  Episcopalians  who  adhere  to  the  Episcopal 
system,  as  well  adapted,  in  their  opinion,  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  their  church."  He  says;  "We  would  live  in 
harmony  with  them,  notwithstanding  their  mistaken 
views  of  the  true  form  of  the  church,  provided  they  do 
not  denounce  other  systems  of  church  government.  But 
the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  Episcopal 
as  the  only  valid  form  of  government,  and  of  the  Episco- 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  173 

pal  succession  of  Bishops  above  mentioned,  in  order  to 
a  participation  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit, — all  this  we 
must  regard  as  something  foreign  to  the  true  idea  of  the 
Christian  church.  It  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  spirit 
of  Protestantism ;  and  is  the  origin,  not  of  the  true  Ca- 
tholicism of  the  Apostles,  but  of  that  of  the  Romish 
church.  When  therefore  Episcopalians  disown,  as  es- 
sentially deficient  in  their  ecclesiastical  organization, 
other  Protestant  churches,  which  evidently  have  the  spirit 
of  Christ;  it  only  remains  for  us  to  protest,  in  the 
strongest  terms,  against  their  setting  up  such  a  standard 
— for  the  Christian  church.  Far  be  it  from  us,  who 
began  with  Luther  in  the  spirit,  that  we  should  now  de- 
sire to  be  made  perfect  by  the  flesh."* 

Such  testimonies  and  arguments  as  I  have  now  pre- 
sented, in  connection  with  those  given  in  previous  Lec- 
tures, against  the  High  church  assumptions,  and  com- 
ing, as  they  do,  from  Episcopalians  and  others  of  such 
reputation,  must,  I  think,  have  weight  in  the  public 
mind.  I  hope  they  will  have  some  weight  with  Episco- 
palians, even  with  those  who  hold  the  High  church  prin- 
ciples. But  I  have  been  too  conversant  with  the  human 
mind  and  human  affairs,  to  indulge  any  sanguine  expec- 
tation, that  diflerences  of  opinion  on  such  subjects  will, 
generally,  be  either  removed  or  diminished  by  the  influ- 
ence of  controversy.  Unhappily,  it  is  often  found  to  be 
the  effect  of  controversy,  that  the  parties  engaged  in  it, 
are  carried  still  further  apart  from  each  other.  It  would 
be  very  painful  to  me,  if  it  should  prove  to  be  so  in  the 
present  case.     For  how  earnestly  soever  I  may  desire  to 

*  iVeander's  Introduction  to  Coleman's  Primitive  Church. 


174  LECTURE    VII. 

convince  Episcopalians  of  what  I  regard  as  faults  in  their 
scheme ;  I  am  still  more  desirous  that  mutual  prejudices 
may  be  done  away,  and  that  ministers  and  churches  of 
different  names,  who  truly  believe  the  doctrines  and  obey 
the  precepts  of  the  gospel,  may  receive  one  another  in 
love,  as  they  have  all,  and  equally,  been  received  by 
Christ,  their  common  Lord  and  Saviour.  All  real  Chris- 
tians ought  to  be  so  mindful  of  the  debt  of  gratitude 
which  they  owe  to  him  who  loved  them  and  died  for 
them,  and  who  called  them  with  a  holy  calling,  not  ac- 
cording to  their  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose 
and  grace, — they  ought  to  be  so  delighted  with  their 
happy  relation  to  the  Redeemer  and  Head  of  the  church, 
and  with  that  eternal  inheritance  which  they  will  all  in 
a  few  days  enjoy  together  in  heaven, — and  they  ought 
to  be  so  occupied  with  the  momentous  work  of  honor- 
ing Christ,  and  preparing  themselves  and  others  for  his 
coming  and  kingdom,  that  all  differences  in  mere  out- 
ward forms  shall,  in  their  view,  sink  into  comparative 
insignificance.  Their  affection  to  Christ  should  be  so 
strong,  that  they  shall  desire  above  all  things  to  please 
him.  And  it  must  be  perfectly  clear  to  them,  that  they 
can  do  nothing  more  pleasing  to  him,  than  to  love  those 
whom  he  loves,  and  to  receive  those  whom  he  has  re- 
ceived, and  especially  to  look  with  hearty  complacency 
and  joy  upon  all  those  who  bear  his  image,  and  love  his 
cause,  and  who  are  laboring  faithfully,  and  with  abun- 
dant evidence  of  his  gracious  presence  and  approbation, 
to  preach  his  glorious  gospel. 

Instances  are  not  wanting  of  that  candid,  fraternal 
affection  and  conduct,  which  should  be  found  in  Chris- 
tians, towards  those  who  differ  from  them  as  to  outward 


HIGH    CHURCH   PRINCIPLE.  175 

forms  of  worship  and  government.  There  are  many 
praise-worthy  examples  of  this  among  different  denom- 
inations in  this  country.  Congregationalists,  Presby- 
terians of  different  classes,  Baptists,  and  Methodists, 
however  strong  their  predilections  for  their  own  peculi- 
arities, and  their  objections  to  the  peculiarities  of  each 
other,  still  maintain  a  kind,  brotherly  intercourse.  Min- 
isters of  these  several  denominations  recognize  each 
other  as  true  gospel  ministers,  frequently  exchange  min- 
isterial labors,  and  even  assist  in  each  other's  ordination. 
And  all  this  they  do,  not  in  the  way  of  time-serving,  and 
not  because  they  have  the  least  disposition  to  give  up 
anything  which  is  a  matter  of  conscience.  Their  motive 
is  widely  different.  They  do  it,  because  they  regard  the 
great,  essential  things  of  Christianity  as  of  paramount 
importance ;  because  they  love  all  who  bear  the  image 
of  Christ ;  and  because  they  have  some  enlargedness  of 
mind,  and,  in  things  which  are  not  essential  to  the 
scheme  of  gospel  truth,  are  willing  to  concede  to  others 
the  same  right  of  private  judgment  and  the  same  liberty 
of  action,  as  they  claim  for  themselves.  This  spirit  of 
Christian  liberality  and  love  has  for  the  most  part,  and 
particularly  in  some  very  significant  instances,  been  a 
conspicuous  mark  of  the  Puritans, — although  the  oppo- 
site qualities  of  uncharitableness  and  bigotry,  have  so 
often  been  imputed  to  them.  I  cannot  but  glory  in  the 
lovely  and  noble  character  they  exhibited,  or  rather  in 
the  grace  of  Christ  which  was  with  them,  when  I  call  to 
mind  their  feelings  and  conduct  in  the  remarkable  case 
of  which  I  am  about  to  make  mention.  The  Puritans 
in  England,  both  ministers  and  private  Christians,  judged 
by  the  standard  of  Scripture  or  impartial  reason,  were  a 


176  LECTURE    Vli. 

noble  race  of  men,  indued  with  extraordinary  intellec- 
tual and  moral  excellence.  This  character  always  has 
been  and  always  will  be  awarded  to  them  by  discerning 
and  candid  men.  From  time  to  time  they  had  suffered 
persecution  in  different  ways,  and  in  no  small  degree, 
from  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power.  But  they  suffer- 
ed with  meekness,  and  endeavoured  to  comply  with  the 
gospel  precept,  not  to  return  evil  for  evil.  In  the  year 
1630,  ten  years  after  the  first  settlement  of  our  forefa- 
thers in  Massachusetts,  a  body  of  Puritan  emigrants  em- 
barked for  this  new  country  on  board  the  ship  Arbella. 
On  that  occasion, — which  was  to  them  so  deeply  solemn 
and  interesting, — they  were  elevated  above  all  selfish 
and  contracted  feelings,  and  their  hearts  were  wide  open 
to  sentiments  of  the  tenderest  affection  and  confidence 
towards  all  who  loved  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity, 
and  particularly  towards  their  brethren  of  the  church  of 
England,  from  whom  they  had  conscientiously  dissented, 
and  of  whom  they  were  now  about  to  take  a  final  leave. 
They  were  Dissenters  and  Puritans  before  they  came  to 
America,  as  much  as  they  were  after.  But  they  were 
Christians  ;  and  they  recognized  Christians  in  the 
church  from  which  they  had  honestly  separated,  and 
loved  them  with  pure  hearts  fervently.  Before  sailing, 
they  addressed  a  letter  to  them, — a  letter  which  breathes 
a  spirit  worthy  to  be  praised, — as  it  has  been  by  Episco- 
palians as  well  as  others, — and  not  only  to  be  praised, 
but  to  be  imitated.  They  address  themselves  with  great 
respect  and  affection  to  their  fathers  and  brethren  of  the 
church  of  England,  and  express  a  strong  desire  to  pro- 
cure "  the  prayers  and  blessings  of  the  Lord's  faithful 
servants."     "  For  which  end,"  they  say,  "  we — have 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  177 

recourse  unto  you,  as  those  whom  God  hath  placed  near- 
est his  throne  of  mercy ; — we  beseech  you,  therefore,  by 
the  mercies  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  consider  us  as  your 
brethren,  standing  in  very  great  need  of  your  help,  and 
earnestly  imploring  it.  And  howsoever  your  charity  may 
have  met  with  some  occasion  of  discouragement  throuah 
the  misreport  of  our  intentions,  or  through  the  disaffec- 
tion, or  indiscretion  of  some  of  us,  or  rather  amongst 
us  :  for  we  are  not  of  those  who  dream  of  perfection  in 
this  world  ;  yet  we  desire  you  would  be  pleased  to  take 
notice  of  the  Principals  and  body  of  our  company,  as 
those  who  esteem  it  our  honor  to  call  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, from  whence  we  rise,  our  dear  mother,  and  cannot 
part  from  our  native  country  where  she  specially  resid- 
eth,  without  much  sadness  in  our  hearts,  and  many 
tears, — ever  remembering  that  such  hope  and  part  as  we 
have  obtained  in  the  common  salvation,  we  have  receiv- 
ed in  her  bosom,  and  sucked  from  her  breasts  ;  we  leave 
it  not  therefore,  loathing  the  milk  wherewith  we  were 
nourished  there;  but,  blessing  God  for  the  parentage 
and  education,  as  members  of  the  same  body,  shall  al- 
ways rejoice  in  her  good,  and  unfeignediy  grieve  for  any 
sorrow  that  shall  ever  betide  her,  and  while  we  have 
breath,  sincerely  desire  and  endeavour  the  continuance 
and  abundance  of  her  welfare,  with  the  enlargement  of 
her  bounds  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  Jesus." 

"  Be  pleased  therefore,  Reverend  fathers  and  breth- 
ren, to  help  forward  this  work  now  in  hand. It  is  an 

usual  and  laudable  exercise  of  your  charity,  to  recom- 
mend to  the  prayers  of  your  congregations,  the  necessi- 
ties and  straits  of  your  private  neighbours.  Do  the  like 
for  a  church  springing  out  of  your  own  bowels.  We 
12 


178  LECTURE    VII. 

conceive  much  hope,  that  this  remembrance  of  us,  if  it 
be  frequent  and  fervent,  will  be  a  most  prosperous  gale 
in  our  sails,  and  provide  such  a  passage  and  welcome  for 
us  from  the  God  of  the  whole  earth,  as  both  we  who  shall 
find  it,  and  yourselves  with  the  rest  of  our  friends,  who 
shall  hear  of  it,  shall  be  much  enlarged  to  bring  in  such 
daily  returns  of  thanksgiving,  as  the  specialties  of  his 
Providence  —  may  justly  challenge  at  all  our  "hands. 
You  are  not  ignorant,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  stirred  up 
the  Apostle  Paul  to  make  continual  mention  of  the 
church  of  Philippi,  which  was  a  colony  of  Rome.  Let 
the  same  Spirit,  we  beseech  you,  put  you  in  mind,  —  to 
pray  for  us  without  ceasing,  who  are  a  weak  colony  from 
yourselves,  making  continual  request  for  us  to  God  in  all 
your  prayers." 

"  If  any  there  be,  who  through  want  of  clear  intelli- 
gence of  our  course,  or  tenderness  of  affection  towards 
us,  cannot  conceive  so  well  of  our  way  as  we  could  de- 
sire ;  we  would  intreat  such  not  to  despise  us,  nor  to  de- 
sert us  in  their  prayers,  —  but  to  consider  rather,  that 
they  are  so  much  the  more  bound  to  express  the  bowels 
of  their  compassion  toward  us,  remembering  always,  that 
both  nature  and  grace  doth  bind  us  to  relieve  and  rescue, 
with  our  utmost  —  power,  such  as  are  dear  unto  us, 
when  we  conceive  them  to  be  running  uncomfortable 
hazards." 

"  What  goodness  you  shall  extend  to  us  in  this  or  any 
other  Christian  kindness,  we,  your  brethren  in  Christ 
Jesus,  shall  labor  to  repay  in  what  duty  we  are  or  shall 
be  able  to  perform,  promising,  so  far  as  God  shall  enable 

us,  to  give  him  no  rest  on  your  behalf, when  we 

shall  be  in  our  poor  cottages  in  the  wilderness. . 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  179 

And  so  commending  you  to  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ, 
we  shall  ever  rest,  Your  assured  friends  and  brethren." 

This  letter  was  subscribed  by  Jo.  Wintlirop,  Gov., 
Rich.  Saltonstall,  and  others,  and  was  dated,  Yarmouth, 
aboard  the  Arbelia,  April  7,  1630. 

I  have  referred  so  particularly  to  this  instance  of  ele- 
vated Christian  feeling  and  conduct,  as  highly  creditable 
to  those  Puritan  emigrants,  and  as  what  I  hope  may  be 
profitable  to  others.  I  am  confident  that  a  letter,  so  re- 
spectful and  affectionate  as  this,  must  have  produced  a 
powerful  effect,  and  that  many  ministers  and  laymen  in 
the  church  of  England  must  have  heartily  responded  to 
the  sentiments  of  sincere  love  and  piety,  which  were  so 
meekly  and  tenderly  addressed  to  them.  Those  pious 
Puritans,  enlisted  in  such  a  great  and  perilous  enterprise, 
and  then  about  to  leave  their  native  country,  passed  over 
all  matters  of  minor  consequence,  and  looked  upon  the 
church  of  England  as  a  branch  of  the  spiritual  kingdom 
of  Christ,  and  acknowledged  all  Christians  who  belonged 
to  it,  as  brethren.  Who  can  doubt,  that  the  worthy  and 
the  good  in  that  church  were  actuated  by  a  similar  spirit 
of  affection  and  candor,  and  that  they  regarded  those 
Puritans  with  true  brotherly  love,  and  offered  up  many 
fervent  and  effectual  prayers  to  God  in  their  behalf? 

Some  Episcopalians  are  fond  of  quoting  the  above- 
mentioned  letter,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  high  a 
place  their  church  formerly  had  in  the  esteem  even  of 
Puritans.  This  is  all  well.  But  ought  they  to  stop 
here  ?  If  the  Puritans  did  what  was  proper  in  writing 
such  a  letter,  it  ought  to  be  mentioned  to  their  honor,  as 
well  as  to  the  honor  of  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed. 
And  if  Episcopalians  consider  the  sentiments  of  humility 


180  LECTUREVII. 

and  brotherly  kindness  and  charity,  which  pervade  the 
letter,  to  be  scriptural  and  just,  they  ought  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  them,  and  to  reciprocate  them.  If  it  is  right 
for  Puritan  ministers  and  Christians  to  esteem  and  love 
Episcopal! cms  as  brethren,  it  is  right  that  they,  in  their 
turn,  should  be  esteemed  and  loved  bi/  Episcopalians  in 
the  same  way.  If  Episcopalians  are  disposed  to  receive 
honor  from  the  fraternal  affection  of  Puritans,  let  them 
take  care,  by  the  same  fraternal  affection,  to  honor  the 
Puritans, — according  to  the  golden  rule, — "  Whatsoever 
ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  to 
them." — It  cannot  be  that  Episcopalians  should  really 
think,  as  they  do,  that  the  views  and  feelings  expressed 
in  this  remarkable  document  are  worthy  of  their  hearty 
commendation,  without  being  aware  that  they  are  also 
worthy  of  their  imitation. — And  if  all  churchmen  and 
all  dissenters  in  Great  Britain,  and  all  Episcopalians  and 
non-Episcopalians  in  America  might  be  animated  and 
governed  by  those  pure,  disinterested,  Apostolic  senti- 
ments of  the  Puritans,  which  have  now  been  mentioned 
with  approbation  ;  it  would  be  an  accomplishment,  in  a 
measure,  of  that  prayer  which  Jesus  offered  up  the  same 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  :  "  Neither  pray  I  for 
these  alone,  but  for  them  also  who  shall  believe  on  me 
through  their  word  ;  that  they  all  may  he  one  ;  as  thou. 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be 
one  in  us ;  that  the  world  may  believe  that  tliou  hast 
sent  me.  And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest  me,  I  have 
given  them ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one; 
I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  made  per- 
fect in  one  ;  and  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast 
sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  me." 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  181 

How  insignificant  do  all  outward  forms,  ceremonial  ob- 
servances, party  names,  and  worldly  interests  appear, 
when  we  turn  our  thoughts  to  that  cordial  love  and  union 
among  all  true  believers,  by  which  this  prayer  of  our 
blessed  Saviour  would  be  fulfilled  !  Let  the  followers  of 
Christ,  however  distinguished  by  different  names,  and 
by  dwelling  in  different  places,  concur,  in  their  feelings 
and  words  and  actions,  with  the  holy  intercessions  of  him 
who  died  for  them  ;  and  then  the  world  shall  see  what 
Christianity  is,  and  be  constrained  to  repeat  the  saying — 
BeJwId,  how  these  Christians  love  one  another  !  What 
is  the  zeal  and  arguing  and  strife  of  men  in  favor  of 
their  own  party — what  is  it  all  worth,  compared  with  a 
good  like  this ! 

I  have  referred  to  a  small  company  of  Puritans,  as 
men  who  breathed  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  cherish- 
ed a  fraternal  affection  towards  all  who  loved  the  Lord 
Jesus.  And  I  have  the  pleasure  to  say,  that  much  of 
the  same  spirit  has  prevailed  and  now  prevails  among 
the  different  classes  of  non-Episcopal  ministers  and 
Christians  in  this  country  ;  and  would  prevail  still  more 
extensively,  were  it  not  constantly  annoyed  and  chilled 
by  the  narrow  exclusiveness  and  haughty  bigotry  of 
High  churchmen.  So  far  as  my  knowledge  extends. 
Congregational  ministers  in  New  England  are  disposed 
to  maintain  a  free  Christian  and  ministerial  intercourse 
with  Episcopal  ministers.  They  do  indeed  sustain  their 
own  denomination,  as  a  branch  of  the  Christian  church; 
but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  other  branches.  Neither 
their  pulpits,  nor  their  churches,  nor  their  institutions, 
nor  their  hearts,  are  exclusive.  They  adhere  zealously 
to  Congregationalism;  but  they  indignantly  reject  the 


182  LECTURE    VII. 

idea,  that  other  denominations  of  evangelical  Christians 
do  not  belong  to  the  true  church,  and  do  not  enjoy  the 
presence  and  favor  of  the  Head  of  the  church,  as  really 
as  themselves.  And  they  are  at  all  times  ready,  by  their 
prayers  and  their  labors,  to  promote  the  success  of  the 
gospel  among  those  who  adopt  different  modes  of  church 
order.  And  I  believe  that  a  similar  spirit  of  brotherly 
kindness  prevails,  in  a  good  degree,  among  the  principal 
denominations  of  evangelical  Christians  in  America. 

Biishop  De  Lancey,  in  the  sermon  before  mentioned, 
speaks  of  the  "  wide-spreading  bodies  of  Christians"  in 
Massachusetts,  "  who  look  with  hostility  or  apathy  upon" 
Episcopalians.  Now  why  does  he  say  this  ?  I  consider 
this  Seminary  to  be  the  child  of  Congregationalism, 
which  has  always  been  the  predominant  form  of  religion 
in  this  State.  The  Seminary  was  founded  by  Congre- 
gationalists ;  and  its  affairs  have  been  administered  in 
accordance  with  the  general  principles  and  feelings  of 
Congregation alists.  And  all  the  manifestation  which 
has  here  been  made  of  either  "  hostility  or  apathy"  to- 
wards Episcopalians,  has  been  this, — that  we  have  re- 
ceived a  large  number  of  young  men,  who  have  been 
and  have  been  known  to  be  Episcopalians, — we  have 
received  just  as  large  a  number  of  them  as  have  been 
pleased  to  come  here,  and  have  granted  them  all  the 
common  privileges  of  the  Institution,  and  have  exercised 
towards  them,  as  they  will  testify,  the  same  friendship  as 
to  any  others,  and  if  they  have  desired  it,  as  many  of 
them  have, — we  have  aided  them  in  preparing  for  the 
Episcopal  church  by  our  charity  funds.  This  has  been 
the  course  we  have  uniformly  pursued,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  all  concerned  in  the  crovernment  of  the  Institu- 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  183^ 

tion,  from  the  beginning  to  the  present  time.  Nor  is 
there  to  be  any  change  in  this  respect.  I  do  not  men- 
tion this  treatment  of  those  who  have  been  training  up 
for  the  ministry  and  the  missionary  service  in  the  Epis- 
copal church,  as  a  matter  of  boasting,  or  as  conferring 
any  particular  obligation  on  Episcopalians.  We  have 
done  it  from  a  desire  to  advance  the  common  welfare  of 
the  true  church  of  Christ,  by  introducing  into  every 
branch  of  it,  learned,  pious,  and  faithful  ministers.  I  re- 
fer to  this  fact,  with  which  I  happen  to  be  familiar,  and 
I  might  refer  to  many  other  facts,  to  show,  that  Congre- 
gationalism, though  always  ready  to  protest  against  what- 
ever taint  of  Romanism  remains  among  Episcopalians, 
feels  neither  "  hostility"  nor  "  apathy,"  but  hearty  good 
will  towards  them,  as  one  of  the  branches  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  is  always  happy  to  join  in  the  noble 
and  successful  efforts  which  they  are  making,  both  here 
and  in  Great  Britain,  to  promote  the  true  interest  of 
Christ's  kingdom. 

And  now,  as  I  have  taken  pains  to  show,  that  non- 
Episcopal  Christians,  particularly  the  Puritans,  possess, 
in  some  good  measure,  though  still  far  less  than  they 
ought,  the  spirit  of  forbearance  and  active,  brotherly 
kindness  towards  Christians  belonging  to  the  Episcopal 
church  ;  I  shall  adduce  one  particular  instance,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  many  instances  which  have  been  alluded  to, 
of  the  right  spirit  among  Episcopalians, — that  is,  the 
spirit  of  sincere  brotherly  love  and  confidence  towards 
Christians  of  other  denominations.  And  I  shall  adduce 
this  instance,  because  it  is  recent,  and  because  our  reli- 
gious community  has  been  deeply  impressed  with  it.  I 
refer  to  the  case  of  Mar  Yohannan,  the  Nestorian  Bish- 


184 


LECTURE    VII 


op.  The  Reverend  Prelate  of  the  Diocese  of  Western 
New  York,  in  the  sermon  which  I  have  repeatedly  men- 
tioned, makes  a  very  particular  reference  to  the  remarks 
of  Mar  Yohannan,  to  prove,  what  no  intelligent  person 
has  doubted,  that  the  Nestorians  are  Episcopalians  in 
their  mode  of  worship  and  Church  government;  that 
they  have  three  sacred  orders,  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  though  nine  degrees  of  clergy ;  that  the  Bish- 
ops ordain,  that  they  have  Prayer  Books,  etc.  All  this 
is  plain.  Now  if  it  is  proper  to  refer  to  Mar  Yohannan 
to  show  that  he  and  his  Nestorian  brethren  hold  to  the 
Episcopal  scheme  of  church  order,  it  is  equally  proper 
to  refer  to  him  to  show,  that  they,  in  common  with  many 
English  and  American  Episcopalians,  hold  to  it  without 
bigotry,  and  in  the  exercise  of  fervent  brotherly  affection 
towards  Christians  of  other  denominations.  Mar  Yo- 
hannan and  his  brethren  from  the  first  welcomed  the 
arrival  of  our  Missionaries,  and  gladly  opened  their 
houses  and  their  churches  to  them  as  ministers  of  Christ, 
who  were  sent  there,  not  to  dispute  about  rites  and  cere- 
monies and  forms  of  worship,  but  to  preach  Christ  cru- 
cified. And  there,  in  that  distant  region,  among  those 
poor  and  oppressed  Nestorians,  you  behold  an  example  of 
mutual  love  and  confidence  and  Christian  cooperation  be- 
tween Episcopalians  and  non-Episcopalians,  upon  which 
the  God  of  all  grace,  the  Father  of  all  believers,  has 
looked  with  special  favor.  The  whole  affair  is  fully  set 
forth  in  the  excellent  publication  of  the  Rev.  Justin 
Perkins,  D.  D.  But  because  Mar  Yohannan,  while  on 
a  visit  to  this  country,  manifested  a  special  attachment 
to  the  worthy  missionary  under  whose  protection  he  had 
been  placed,  and  ardent  love  and  gratitude  to  those  min- 


HIGH    CHURCH   PRINCIPLE.  185 

isters  and  Christians  who  had  done  so  much  for  the  spir- 
itual good  of  his  afflicted  people,  he  was  compelled  to 
witness  a  striking  development  of  that  unchristian  exclu- 
siveness,  against  which  I  have  given  and  must  still  give 
my  most  earnest  protestation.  In  the  Churchman,  an 
Episcopal  paper  of  New  York,  the  High-church  Episco- 
palians made  a  direct  attack  upon  the  Nestorian  Bishop, 
calling  in  question  his  title  to  the  office  of  a  Prelate  and 
the  orthodoxy  of  his  people,  and  then  signifying  that  he 
ought  to  be  censured,  and  excluded  from  their  commu- 
nion, because  he  had  kept  company  and  prayed  with 
other  denominations  of  Christians,  and  had  suffered  and 
encouraged  Missionaries  of  the  American  Board  to  offi- 
ciate as  clergymen  among  the  Nestorians. 

Now  there  is  nothing  which  excites,  in  the  minds  of 
men  in  general,  feelings  of  stronger  disapprobation  and 
abhorrence,  than  unprovoked  and  wanton  injury  com- 
mitted against  a  meek,  inoffensive,  and  kind-hearted 
man.  But  the  good  Bishop  answers  for  himself  And 
the  whole  of  his  answer,  as  translated  by  Mr.  Perkins, 
may  be  seen  in  the  volume  referred  to,  called  *'  A  Resi- 
dence OF  Eight  Years  in  Persia."  I  shall  quote  only 
a  part.     He  writes  thus. 

"  My  brethren  of  the  Episcopalians  : 

What  evil  or  wicked  tiling  have  I  wrought  in  relation 
to  you,  that  some  of  you  should  write  about  me  in  your 
Newspapers,  and  scatter  them  through  all  America?  I 
am  a  p(^or  man,  and  my  nation  is  poor.  T  came  to  thank 
Christians  in  this  country  for  having  helped  us,  and  to 
ask  them  to  help  us  more,  for  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.     We   are  members  one  of  another. 


186  LECTURE    VII. 

Well ;  if  you  had  desired  our  good,  would  you  not  some- 
times have  inquired  of  me  thus :  what  is  the  condition 
of  your  people  in  that  land  of  heathens?  Is  there  a 
church  there  1  Are  there  good  men  ?  Are  there  tokens 
of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  What  is  the  state 
of  knowledge  and  instruction  ?  What  are  the  morals  ? 
But  from  very  few  of  you  have  1  heard  one  of  these 
questions.  You  ask,  how  many  orders  have  you  7  My 
ineudiS,  forms  are  nothing,     ''Neither  is  circumcision 

anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature." 

Shall  we  place  our  confidence  in  name,  or  forms?  No; 
but  in  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  descended  from  his  throne 
on  high  to  save  that  which  was  lost.  Observe  and  be- 
hold. The  Creator  of  the  heights  and  the  depths  did 
not  demean  himself  so  loftily  as  some  denominations, 

who  say,  We  are  ;  there  is  no  other  true  church. 

Your  church  came  out  from  the  church  of  the  Pope. 
Is  there  not  some  leaven  of  the  Pope  still  remaining  in 

many  of  you  ? What  are  those  pictures  in  some  of 

your  churches?     This  is  a  mark  of  the  Pope. Mark 

that  second  commandment, — Thou  shalt  not  make  unto 
thee  any  likeness  of  anything  in  heaven  above,  nor  in 
the  earth  beneath,  nor  in  the  waters  under  the  earth. 
Another  commandment  of  God  is,  Love  your  neighbours 
as  yourselves. — But  you  say,  our  church  is  great. 
Very  well.  Your  church  has  become  great,  has  it? 
Why?  That  it  may  despise  small  churches?  Our  Lord 
— says,  whoever  will  be  greatest,  let  him  be  servant  of 
all.  This  haughtiness  is  another  mark  of  the  Pope,  who 
teaches  that  none  will  be  saved   who  are  out  of  his 

church. Come  let  us  see ;  has  our  Lord  pronounced 

blessings  on  the  proud,  or  on  the  mech  1 1  do  not  say 


HIGH    CHURCH   PRINCIPLE.  187 

your  way  [church  polity]  is  not  a  good  one, — very  good, 
if  you  properly  follow  it ;  not  in  exclusiveness  and  osten- 
tation, saying  we  are  the  only  true  church ;  nor  in  hypo- 
crisy.  1  love  Episcopalians,  and  Congregationalists, 

and  Presbyterians,  and  Dutchmen,  and  Lutherans,  and 
Methodists,  and  Baptists, — all,  as  brethren  in   Christ. 

We  open  our  churches  to  their  Priests,  and  receive 

them  as  the  Priests  of  God. Our  Lord  said — whoso- 
ever receiveth  a  Prophet  in  the  name  of  a  Prophet,  shall 

receive  a  Prophet's  reward. Thus  have  we  learned 

from  our  Lord. 

You  are  displeased  with  me,  are  you,  because  I  have 
associated  with  the  Presbyterians  and  Congregational- 
ists?  1  do  not  practise  partiality.     Is  it  very  strange, 

that  I  associate  most  with  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionalists? No.  They  are  equally  our  brethren;  and 
they  have  come  and  helped  us  in  books  and  teachers, 
and  have  done  a  great  and  good  work  for  our  nation. 
Ought  I  to  abandon  them  ? It  would  be  a  black  re- 
proach and  a  great  sin  for  us  thus  to  abuse  the  good 
they  have  done  for  us.  God  would  be  displeased  with 
us  for  such — ingratitude.  But  we  will  never  be  un- 
mindful of  their  beneficence. Shall  we  abuse  the 

good  work  which  they  have  done  for  us?     Never.     We 

must  obey  God  rather  than  man. We  all  have  one 

Lord,  one  f^iith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  over  all  and  in  all ;  over  us, 
over  you,  and  over  them,  and  will  judge  us  all  at  the  last 
day;  and  if  found  at  his  right  hand,  will  raise  us  all  to 
the  same  heaven.  We  shall  dwell  in  peace  together 
there.     May  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 


188  LECTURE    VII. 

love  of  God  the  Father,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  be  with  us  all  forever.     Amen. 

Your  —  unworthy  Christian  brother, 

Mar  Yohannan." 
Novembe?',  1842. 

I  have  thus  given  "line  upon  line,"  because  I  wish  to 
promote  love  and  harmony  among  all  who  are  the  follow- 
ers of  Jesus,  and  to  make  the  impression  deep  and  per- 
manent, that  if  we  look  with  disdain  upon  any  true  and 
faithful  ministers  of  the  gospel,  or  if  we  denounce  or  dis- 
own them,  "  because  they  follow  not  with  us;"  He  who 
searcheth  the  heart,  will  say  to  us,  "  ye  know  not  what 
manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of" 

And  now,  before  leaving  this  point,  let  me  say,  al- 
though the  evil  against  which  I  have  urged  my  last  and 
my  strongest  objection,  is  of  such  a  nature,  and  has  so 
tenacious  a  hold  upon  the  mind  and  heart,  that  it  is  not 
at  all  likely  to  be  cured  by  human  arguments  or  persua- 
sions,— it  can  be  cured  by  the  influence  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  and  the  events  of  the  divine  administration.  Let 
the  Spirit  of  God  visit  one  of  our  cities,  where  there  are 
Episcopal  ministers  holding  the  High  church  principle, 
and  evangelical  ministers  of  other  denominations,  with 
their  respective  churches.  Let  the  Bishop  and  his  cler- 
gy, and  the  other  ministers  of  the  gospel  be  brought  to 
feel  and  act  as  the  Apostle  Paul  did  at  Ephesus,  and 
elsewhere,  who  "  served  the  Lord  with  all  humility  of 
mind,  and  with  many  tears,"  earnestly  desiring  the  con- 
version of  sinners  and  the  enlargement  of  Christ's  spirit- 
ual kingdom,  "  warning  every  one  day  and  night  with 
tears,"  and  "  determined  to  know  nothing  save  Jesus 


HIGH   CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  189 

Christ  and  him  crucified  ;"  or  rather,  let  them  harmonize 
in  their  affections  and  desires  with  the  Blessed  Redeem- 
er, who  came  to  save  that  which  was  lost,  and  whose 
love  for  the  souls  of  sinners  was  so  great,  that  he  died 
for  their  salvation,  and  who  now  reigns  over  all  for  the 
good  of  his  people;  let  them  go  forth  to  their  sacred 
work  from  day  to  day  with  this  state  of  mind,  declaring 
all  the  counsel  of  God,  and  yet  feeling  that  "  neither  is 
he  that  planteth  anything,  nor  he  that  watereth,  but 
God  who  giveth  the  increase,"  and  offering  up  fervent 
prayer  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  sent  down  from 
heaven  to  give  success  to  their  labors ;  and  let  them 
find,  that  the  worldly,  the  profane,  the  thoughtless,  the 
fashionable  and  gay,  the  ambitious,  the  impure,  the  neg- 
lecters  of  public  worship,  the  open  enemies  of  godliness, 
are  convinced  of  sin,  and  disposed  to  inquire  what  they 
shall  do  to  be  saved ;  and,  in  due  time,  let  them  see,  that 
multitudes  have  experienced  that  work  of  God  in  the 
soul,  which  is  so  unspeakably  precious  and  glorious, — 
"  the  renewing  of  the  IIo/i/  Ghost ;"  that,  like  the  Corin- 
thian believers,  they  "  are  washed  and  justified  and  sanc- 
tified in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and   by  the  Spirit 
of  their  God  ;"  that  they  repent  and  believe  ;  that  they 
put  away  all  malice  and  guile,  and  envy,  and  evil  speak- 
ing, and  every  form  of  sin  ;  that  they  love  one  another 
with  pure  hearts  fervently ;    that  they   abound   in  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  are  striving  to  be  "  complete  in 
all  the  will  of  God  ;" — let  the  Bishop  and  his  clergy 
survey  their  own  churches,  and  the  churches  of  other 
ministers,  and  witness  the  evidences  and  results  of  this 
happy  work,  and  see,  with  their  own  eyes,  and  with  glad 
hearts,  how  far,  in  the  state  of  individuals  and  families, 


190  LECTURE    VII. 

and  in  the  whole  condition  of  society,  "  old  things  are 
done  away,  and  all  things  become  new ;"  and  let  it  be 
manifest  to  them,  that  this  blessed  transformation  of 
thousands  and  thousands,  of  different  ages  and  condi- 
tions, and  among  the  different  denominations,  has  been 
effected,  not  by  the  influence  of  any  exciting  human 
machinery,  but  by  the  power  of  plain,  simple  gospel 
truth,  and  love,  and  importunate  prayer,  on  man's  part, 
and  by  an  effectual,  renovating,  all-subduing  energy  on 
God's  part ;  and  let  it  be  perfectly  manifest  to  them, 
that  He,  to  whom  the  kingdom  belongs,  has  given  to 
other  ministers  the  same  indubitable  tokens  of  his  gra- 
cious presence,  approbation  and  blessing,  as  to  them- 
selves; and  let  their  own  hearts  all  the  while  be  filled 
with  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  and  with  the  blessedness  of 
communion  with  their  merciful  God  and  Saviour  ; — let 
all  this  take  place ;  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  claim  of 
exclusive  rights  and  privileges,  and  exclusive  authority, 
would  pass  away  into  the  land  of  forgetfulness,  and  the 
Bishop  and  his  clergy  would  feel  as  Peter  did,  after  he 
had  been  instructed  by  a  vision  not  to  call  that  common 
or  unclean  which  God  had  cleansed ;  and  looking  upon 
the  ministers  and  churches  of  other  names  around  them, 
thus  visited  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  would  yield  their  pre- 
judices, as  Peter  did  his,  to  divine  teaching,  and  would 
say  with  him  ; — Forasmuch  as  God  hath  given  them  the 
like  gift  as  unto  us,  what  are  ice,  that  we  should  with- 
stand God?  Such  a  work  of  God's  Spirit  would  lift 
them  up  above  the  low,  dark,  unhealthy  atmosphere  where 
error  dwells.  And  in  that  higher  state  of  illumination 
and  spirituality,  where  they  would  see  things  as  they 
are,  they  would  quickly  find  themselves  released  from 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  191 

the  evil  principle  inherent  in  their  system  of  exclusive- 
ness,  and  the  arguments  which  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  urge  in  its  favor,  would  weigh  nothing,  being 
evidently  built  upon  false  conceptions  of  the  nature  and 
objects  of  the  reign  of  Christ. 

But  if  there  should  be  no  such  glorious  dispensation 
of  the  Spirit  in  our  day,  and  the  evil  which  I  have  labor- 
ed to  expose,  should  for  the  present  remain  ;  it  will  not 
remain  forever.  A  day  is  coming  when  every  one  who 
holds  the  sacred  office,  shall  stand  before  Christ,  not  to 
judge  others,  but  to  he  judged.  It  will  be  a  heart-search- 
incr,  all-revealin<T  day  ;  and,  in  the  clear  light  which  will 
then  shine,  who  can  tell  how  many  discoveries  will  be 
made,  and  how  many  mistakes  will  be  corrected  1  True 
gospel  ministers  who  were  never  ordained  by  a  Bishop, 
will  be  there, — and  so  many  that  no  man  can  number 
them, — whom  the  Lord  of  all  will  acknowledge  to  have 
been  his  ministers,  and  to  whom  he  will  say,  "  well  done, 
good  and  faithful  servants  ;  enter  ye  into  the  joy  of  your 
Lord."  Those  who  have  set  themselves  up  as  the  only 
true  ministers  of  the  gospel,  will  hear  this  approving 
sentence,  and  will  learn  at  last,  how  great  has  been  the 
difference  between  their  judgment,  and  the  judgment  of 
Christ.  There  will  be  Episcopal  ministers,  more  than 
can  be  numbered,  whom  the  righteous  Judge  will  also 
graciously  own  and  reward,  not  because  they  were  Epis- 
copally  ordained,  but  because  they  were  "  good  and 
faithful  servants.'^  And  there  will  doubtless  be  a  great 
multitude, — and  no  one  knows  how  great  that  multitude 
will  be, — who  were  introduced  into  the  ministry  by  the 
authority  of  a  Bishop,  and  in  other  ways,  but  were  un- 
godly men  and  enemies  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  to 


192  LECTURE   VII. 

whom  the  Judge  will  say, — /  never  knew  you,  depart 
from  me,  ye  tvorkers  of  iniquity.  This  solemn  and  irre- 
versible sentence  upon  good  and  faithful  ministers,  and 
upon  those  of  a  contrary  character,  will  come  from  him 
who  looketh  not  on  the  outward  appearance,  but  on  the 
heart,  and  who  judgeth  righteous  judgment ;  and  all  his 
ministers  and  people  will  say.  Amen. 

I  have  now  given  free  utterance  to  the  convictions  of 
my  reason  and  conscience,  and  the  feelings  of  my  heart, 
respecting  the  exclusive  principle  of  the  High  church- 
men. This  is  a  principle,  however,  which  I  cannot 
find  in  their  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  nor  in  their 
Thirty  Nine  Articles,  nor  in  their  rules  for  ordaining 
ministers.  It  is  a  principle,  which  bears  too  obvious 
and  striking  a  likeness  to  one  of  the  first  principles  of 
the  Papists,  who  acknowledge  none  to  be  ministers  or 
Christians,  except  those  who  belong  to  their  communion, 
—  High  churchmen  themselves,  in  their  turn,  falling 
under  the  sentence  of  exclusion  and  condemnation  from 
the  Higher  churchmen  at  Rome. 

But  before  I  close,  I  have  a  few  words  to  say  respect- 
ing the  Episcopal  scheme,  understood  in  a  more  ration- 
al, mild,  and  cliaritable  manner,  as  it  is  by  so  many 
worthy  Episcopal  ministers,  who  are  called  '^Loiv  church- 
men,"— a  very  improper  designation,  I  thiidv,  seeing 
they  adopt  principles  far  higher  and  nobler  than  the  other 
party.  Now  I  maintain  that  Episcopal  ministers  of  what 
I  call  the  more  reasonable,  charitable  school,  if  they  are 
truly  upright  and  pious,  and  entertain  Scriptural  views 
of  religion,  must  be  subjected  to  some  special  inconve- 
niences and  difficulties.     And  my  apprehension  is,  that, 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  193 

if  some  young  men,  who  are  inclined  to  receive  orders 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  would  take  pains  beforehand, 
to  get  a  just  view  of  all  that  is  implied  in  the  contempla- 
ted transaction,  they  would  start  back  from  it,  and  by 
no  means  consent  to  put  themselves  under  such  unwel- 
come and  revolting  obligations.  This  was  the  case  re- 
cently, as  I  am  informed,  of  a  young  man  of  high  prom- 
ise in  one  of  our  cities.  Just  before  the  time  fixed  for 
his  ordination,  he  had  a  free  conversation  with  the  Bish- 
op, and  from  him  he  learned,  that  if  he  received  orders, 
he  would  not  he  allowed  to  have  ministerial  or  ecclesias- 
tical fellowship  ivith  any  clergymen  or  churches  of  other 
denominations,  or  practically  to  acknowledge  any  one  as 
authorized  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments,  with- 
out Episcopal  ordination.  The  young  man  respectfully 
told  the  Bishop,  that  he  could  not  proceed.  And  I  am 
informed  that  he  is  far  enough  from  repenting  of  his 
decision. 

But  the  inconveniences  and  difficulties  alluded  to,  be- 
come more  apparent  and  formidable  in  relation  to  those, 
who  enter  the  Episcopal  church  after  having,  for  a  con- 
siderable time,  sustained  the  office  of  gospel  ministers 
in  other  denominations.  I  shall  explain  my  meaning  by 
an  example.  And  I  can  fix  upon  no  one  better  adapted 
to  my  object,  than  the  late  Edward  Payson.  I  will 
suppose  then,  that  he  is  still  alive,  and  that  after  he  has 
been  a  Congregational  minister  for  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
it  becomes  a  serious  inquiry  with  him,  whether  he  shall 
change  his  denomination  and  be  an  Episcopal  minister, 
— not  however  as  a  matter  of  conscience,  but  because  he 
is  aware  of  some  defects  in  Congregationalism,  and  looks 
with  peculiar  satisfaction  upon  the  more  exact  rules  of 
13 


194  LECTURE    VII. 

order  in  the  Episcopal  church.  But  Dr.  Payson  is  not 
a  man,  that  will  take  a  step  of  such  moment  to  himself 
and  others,  without  much  serious  thought,  and  much 
prayer  for  divine  direction.  He  sits  down,  therefore, 
deliberately  to  examine  the  matter,  and  to  count  the  cost, 
and  to  satisfy  himself  what  the  Lord  would  have  him  to 
do.  So  far  as  appears  from  the  Prayer  Book,  one  of 
the  first  things  to  be  done  in  order  to  his  being  admitted 
into  the  Episcopal  church,  is,  to  satisfy  the  Bishop,  that 
he  can  say  the  Creed,  the  Lord^s  Prayer,  and  the  Ten 
Commandments ,  and  can  also  answer  such  questions  as  are 
contained  in  the  Church  Catechism ;  and  that,  on  this 
condition,  he  is  to  receive  confirmation,  just  as  a  child 
does,  and  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper. — He  finds 
too,  that,  if  he  takes  orders  in  the  Episcopal  church,  he 
will  be  held,  though  entirely  contrary  to  his  inclinations, 
to  act  on  the  exclusive  principle.  The  Bishop  will  not 
admit  him  to  preach  and  adtninister  the  ordinances  on  the 
ground  of  his  previous  ordination.  Had  he  never  been 
ordained,  one  great  difficulty  would  be  avoided.  But 
although  he  verily  believes  that  he  has  been  called  of 
God,  and  duly  ordained,  and  has,  for  so  many  years, 
been  authorized  to  fill  the  office  of  a  gospel  minister, 
he  must,  hy  a  public  act,  renounce  it  all,  and  count  it 
for  nothing,  and  receive  ordination,  just  as  though  he 
had  never  been  ordained.  He  has  preached  the  gospel 
and  administered  the  Sacraments  to  thousands,  very 
much  to  their  edification,  and  with  great  enjoyment  in 
his  own  soul.  But  he  must  now,  hy  a  puhlic  act,  de- 
clare, that  he  has  never  had  any  warrant  from  God  to 
minister  in  holy  things,  and  that  all  he  has  done  in  the 
ministerial  office,  though  fraught  with  such  benefits  to 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  195 

multitudes,  has  been  without  validity.  His  labors  have, 
in  an  unusual  degree,  been  accompanied  with  the  bless- 
ing of  Almighty  God,  and  he  can  look  upon  many  hun- 
dred Christians,  and  a  number  of  gospel  ministers,  who 
are  the  seals  of  his  ministry,  and  will  be  his  joy  and 
crown  at  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  he  must 
now,  in  the  face  of  the  world,  engage  in  a  transaction, 
which  implies,  and  is  understood  to  imply,  that  all  his 
pious  and  successful  labors  have  been  performed  without 
any  just  authority,  and  contrary  to  the  will  of  his  Lord 
and  Master. — If  he  becomes  an  Episcopal  minister,  it 
will  be  his  desire  freely  to  indulge  the  kind  fraternal  af- 
fections of  his  own  large  heart  towards  those  good  men, 
who  have  been  his  fellow-laborers  in  the  vineyard  of 
Christ,  and  with  whom  he  has  so  often  united  in  improv- 
ing conversation  and  in  fervent  prayer,  and  still  to  ac- 
knowledge them  and  walk  with  them  as  ministers  of  the 
gospel ; — for  they  are  not  changed,  except  for  the  better  ; 
and  his  own  heart  is  not  changed  towards  them.  But 
he  will  be  compelled  to  resist  all  these  lovely  and  hal- 
lowed inclinations  of  his  own  heart,  and  to  sacrifice  the 
heaven-born  principle  of  unity  and  fellowship  among  the 
servants  of  Christ,  and  publicly  to  separate  himself  from 
those  brethren,  whom  he  has  so  sincerely  esteemed  and 
loved,  and  who  have,  with  equal  sincerity,  esteemed  and 
loved  him ; — and  all  this,  not  for  any  cause  existing  in 
them,  or  in  him,  nor  out  of  regard  to  the  mind  of  Christ, 
or  to  anything  in  the  law  or  the  gospel, — but  merely  be- 
cause he  has  entered  the  Episcopal  church,  and  placed 
himself  under  a  Bishop. — He  has  assisted  in  setting 
apart  many  well  qualified  young  men  to  the  ministry  by 
prayer   and  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  has  rejoiced  to 


196 


LECTURE    VII 


see  with  what  ability  and  diligence  they  have  executed 
the  office  committed  to  them,  and  what  tokens  of  divine 
favor  have  attended  them.  But  the  moment  the  hands 
of  the  Bishop  are  laid  on  him,  he  must  in  fact,  though 
contrary  to  all  the  impulses  of  his  heart,  keep  himself  at 
a  distance  from  all  these  servants  of  Christ ;  must  disal- 
low the  validity  of  their  ordinations,  and  must  have  no 
more  ministerial  intercourse  with  any  of  them, — although 
they  are  his  beloved  brethren  and  fellow-laborers  as  truly 
as  before,  and  some  of  them  his  own  spiritual  children, 
for  whom  he  "  travailed  in  birth,"  and  whom  he  instruct- 
ed and  confirmed  in  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  whom 
he  did,  in  connection  with  others,  so  solemnly  and  de- 
voutly consecrate  to  their  high  and  holy  vocation.  His 
heart  will  cleave  to  his  brethren,  and  will  desire  to  have 
fellowship  with  them,  as  in  the  happy  days  that  are  past, 
and  will  deplore  the  hard  necessity  which  binds  him  to 
break  asunder  so  many  tender  ties.  But  if  he  puts  him- 
self under  the  sway  of  Prelacy,  he  must  submit  to  its 
dictates,  and  by  an  unwilling  and  constrained  practice, 
must  support  its  exclusive  claims. — He  has  been  accus- 
tomed, on  all  occasions,  to  offer  up  prayer  to  God  in  the 
sanctuary,  with  great  freedom,  according  to  the  various 
promptings  of  his  own  fervent  mind,  and  with  the  unc- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  how  can  such  prayer,  or 
the  spiritual  benefits  of  it  continue,  when  he  comes  to 
be  confined  to  forms,  most  of  them  written  ages  of  ages 
ago,  and  is  not  permitted  to  express  a  thought  or  utter 
a  word,  except  what  is  in  the  Book  before  him,  or  ever 
in  any  circumstances,  to  deviate  from  the  same  round  of 
devotions.  And  how  irksome  must  this  perpetual  con- 
finement to  written  forms   be  to  one  who  has  so  long 


HIGH    CHURCH    PRINCIPLE.  197 

worshipped  God,  as  the  Apostles  and  Primitive  Christians 
did,  when  the  Spirit  helped  their  infirmities,  and  taught 
them  how  to  pray,  and  what  to  pray  for ! — But  a  still 
greater  difficulty  remains.  For  every  time  he  adminis- 
ters Baptism  to  children,  he  must  solemnly  and  expressly 
declare,  that  God  does  then  *'  regenerate  them  by  his 
Holy  Spirit,  and  receive  them  for  his  own  children  hy 
adoption,'' — although  he  does  not  believe  the  sentiment 
he  expresses,  and  while  he  utters  it  with  his  lips,  must 
have  an  honest,  but  painful  consciousness,  that  such  a 
baptismal  service  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God. 

These  are  the  leading  circumstances  of  the  case, 
which  come  before  the  mind  of  that  good  man.  And 
they  bring  him  to  a  pause.  And  in  view  of  the  whole 
matter,  he  says  within  himself; — how  can  I  think  it  to 
he  the  will  of  my  Lord,  ivhom  1  have  so  long  served  in 
the  ministry,  and  before  ivhom  I  must  shortly  stand, 
that  1  should  take  the  step  ivhich  I  have  been  consider- 
ing  ?  Why  should  I  give  up  all  that  has  been  scripfw 
ral,  and  pure,  and  precious  in  my  own  ministry,  and 
practiccdly  disoicn  all  who  remcun  in  that  condition  in 
which  I  have  spent  so  many  years  ivith  so  much  comfort? 
Whatever  young  men,  ivho  are  less  mindful  of  difficul- 
ties, may  deem  it  proper  to  do ;  ivhy  should  I,  at  this 
late  period  of  my  ministry  and  my  life,  break  so  many 
sacred  bonds,  and  inflict  so  many  icounds  on  myself  and 
others,  and  voluntarily  expose  myself  to  so  many  dreaded 
difficulties  and  sacrifices  7  Why  should  I  thrust  my- 
self into  a  place,  where  I  shall  be  compelled,  in  some 
things,  to  act  agcdnst  the  convictions  of  my  conscience 
and,  in  many  things,  against  the  best  feelings  of  my 
heart  ? 


198  CONCLUSION. 


I  have  now  finished  what  I  intended.  Men  of  discern- 
ment will  doubtless  discover  in  these  Lectures  some- 
thing wrong  in  the  matter,  or  in  the  manner,  or  in 
both.  And  so  far  as  they  will  make  that  wrong  mani- 
fest, they  will  subserve  the  cause  of  truth.  The  contro- 
versy respecting  Prelacy  is  doubtless  to  be  continued, — 
but  not  by  me.  "Whatever  remains  to  be  done  in  the 
way  of  research,  explanation,  and  argument,  must  de- 
volve upon  those  who  are  younger  than  I,  and  who  pos- 
sess higher  qualifications,  and  are  not  so  averse  to  con- 
troversy. A  man  who  has  lived  three  score  years  and 
ten,  and  who  is  called  to  fill  an  office  so  laborious  and 
ditlicult,  as  mine,  should  remember  how  short  his  time 
is,  and,  instead  of  entangling  himself  with  protracted  dis- 
putes about  the  outward  forms  or  any  of  the  non-essen- 
tials of  religion,  should  pursue  steadily  his  great  object, 
and  crive  all  dilicrence  to  finish  the  work  which  God  has 
given  him  to  do. 


END. 


